Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (WEST RIDING) AMENDMENT BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL [by Order]

Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 5th March.

KINGSTON - UPON - HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL [by Order]

Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 5th March.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Rationed Goods (Allied Soldiers, Purchases)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the fact that Allied soldiers are able to purchase rationed goods, without coupons and without Purchase Tax, if the goods are to be sent by the seller to persons overseas; and will he take steps to terminate a practice which limits supplies to the civilian population.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): These facilities have now been withdrawn.

Linoleum Maximum Prices Order

Mr. Denman: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the observations, sent to him by the Leeds and District Chamber of Trade, on the Linoleum Maximum Prices Order, 1944; and whether he will amend the Order so as to prevent undue hardship, especially to the smaller trader.

Mr. Dalton: I have received the observations referred to and have asked the Central Price Regulation Committee to examine them.

Sheets and Blankets (Supplies)

Mr. Foster: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of supplies in Lancashire of bedding, such as sheets, cotton and wool blankets, etc., especially in the case of expectant mothers; and will he take steps to remedy this situation.

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of bed linen available in shops; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.

Mr. Dalton: The textile industries are now heavily engaged on Service and other essential requirements. The output of sheets and blankets is, therefore, strictly limited, but I am glad to say that I have recently been able to arrange for some additional production. Nevertheless, supplies are bound to remain short. I have, however, sent some extra supplies of blankets to certain towns in Lancashire and to other areas where, I am advised, the shortage is most severe.

Textile Industry (Exports to United States)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that some of the allocations to manufacturers under the notice of his export licensing department, dated 8th February, 1944, are so small as not to amount to a quarter of a piece; and if, in consequence, he will consider amending the notice in order to make it workable;
(2) the reasons which led him to exclude Colne Valley tweeds from the clothes eligible for export to the United States of America, under the notice dated 8th February, 1944, issued by his export licensing department.

Mr. Dalton: My first duty is to provide for the essential requirements of this country and the Empire. In view of the shortage of woollen goods, I have only been able to agree to the export to the United States of a very limited quantity of special types of cloth which are available in stock and are not supplied from


current production. I regret that I cannot see my way to extend these arrangements. Colne Valley tweeds have been excluded because they are required to meet essential needs in this country and in the Empire.

Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these tweeds have a very good market in the United States, and is it not a pity to lose that export market?

Mr. Dalton: I cannot agree that the question whether these things can be sold at a profit in the United States is the primary consideration, The primary consideration is to clothe our own people, and those in the Empire who are dependent upon us.

Sir Patrick Hannon: Are we to assume from the reply, that the Empire and the Colonial Empire will receive preferential consideration?

Mr. Dalton: It has been the policy of my Department for a considerable time, that our own people and the Empire countries must come before export markets in foreign countries.

Mr. Molson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of not losing a good deal of this foreign trade?

Mr. Dalton: If I thought that the war was going to last another ten years, that would be a serious argument, but I do not think that our foreign friends will forget so quickly the quality of the goods we produce.

Mr. Hall: Cannot my right hon. Friend make the allocation a little larger, in view of the fact that it is now so small that it is useless?

Mr. Dalton: If it is useless it need not be applied for, but I have explained the reason why I must keep this within strict limits.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED FORCES (COLOURED TROOPS)

Mr. Leach: asked the Secretary of State for War if he any information, statistical or otherwise, to indicate that the behaviour of coloured troops now in this country is in any way inferior to that of white soldiers.

Sir J. Griģģ: This information could only be obtained from the American authorities, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AND RUSSIAN TANKS

Mr. Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any reports from the Russian authorities indicating their opinion of the British tanks which have been supplied to them.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): Reports have been received from the Soviet authorities on the performance of British tanks supplied to them. These reports confirm that British tanks have given excellent service in action against the enemy.

Mr Hammersley: asked the Secretary of State of War (1) whether any requests have been made to Russia for the loan of Russian tanks and with what results;
(2) whether he has had any report giving details of the construction, armour or armament of Russian tanks; and whether he has any information generally on Russian tanks.

Sir J. Griģģ: In accordance with existing policy on Exchanģe of information, we have asked for samples of current Soviet tanks. These samples have been received, and a full and detailed study has been made of their construction, armament and armour.

Mr. Hammersley: Can the House take it that the responsible authorities are taking full advantage of the information which has been received, bearing in mind the fact that it is reported that some modern German tanks are incorporating features which originated in the Russian tanks?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not know about these reports, but I should think that we would be even more half-witted than the hon. Member thinks if we failed to take advantage of any information of this sort that we got.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNION OF STATE SERVANTS (OFFICIAL STATIONERY)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Union of State Servants is issuing its


circulars on official stationery and distributing them in War Office envelopes through the War Office post; whether similar facilities are given to any other trade unions; and if not, why this organisation is given preferential treatment.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am at present investigating a report of the alleged misuse by an official of the Union of State Servants of an official envelope and the War Office postal facilities for the transmission of correspondence and literature. I am not aware of any other case of the alleged misuse of official stationery by this organisation. The use of official stationery for other than official purposes is strictly forbidden.

Mr. Pritt: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a report and will he look into it, that circulars are actually printed on paper with the Stationery Office watermark?

Sir J. Griģģ: I am investigating the report mentioned in the Question, but I have not heard of any other cases. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has, perhaps he will let me have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Hostel Accommodation, Western Command

Major Woolley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that all reasonable hostel provision has been made in Western Command for members of His Majesty's Forces, bearing in mind the limitations of available accommodation and labour.

Sir J. Griģģ: Additional dormitory and hostel accommodation is now being provided in this Command. When this has been completed the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question will be "Yes, Sir."

Major Woolley: In view of that satisfactory answer, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he dissociates himself from the suggestion made in the House on 18th January that the Command Welfare Officer, Western Command, should be removed, bearing in mind the fact that this officer has given three years' invaluable voluntary service?

Sir J. Griģģ: I have no complaint against this Command Welfare Officer; in fact, quite the contrary.

Mr. Goldie: Has the Minister received from Warrington Town Council a resolution protesting against the dilatoriness of the Western Command in the provision of hostel and canteen facilities for the Forces in Warrington; and is he aware that, although the matter has been in the hands of Western Command for a year, it was only last week that requisitioned premises were taken over?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not think that Western Command can manufacture labour and facilities for hostel accommodation more than anybody else.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is largely as the result of action taken by hon. Members that improvements have been brought about for the Armed Forces in the Manchester area?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think that the Member is flattering himself and other Members a little too much. It is partly due to the fact that we were able to release some of the labour employed on more urgent work. The labour question is the cause both of the delay and of the provision of accommodation.

Major Woolley: Is it not a fact that there is an extreme shortage of suitable accommodation, materials and labour?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is certainly the case.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I was not involved, and that is why I could give credit to those who deserve credit?

Home Guard

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War the total hours on duty put in by a certain battalion of the Home Guard, of which he has been informed, between 15th January and the 30th January; the times they were called for duty and the times they left duties on the followinģ dates, 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th January; what were the average number of hours worked by the men in addition to their Home Guard duties; and how many were working 12 hours.

Sir J. Griģģ: I am having inquiry made and, as soon as it is complete, I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Overseas Service (A.T.S.)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a man in the Army and his wife in the A.T.S., both serving overseas, in the event


of the husband receiving a home posting, he will permit the wife also to return to a home station if the exigencies of the service permit.

Sir J. Griģģ: The fact that an officer or other rank has been posted to this country does not entitle his wife in the A.T.S. to receive a similar posting, and I regret that I cannot consider bringing a wife back to this country in such circumstances, until further progress has been made with personnel who have been abroad for long periods.

Major Taylor: As this can affect only a very limited number of cases — there cannot be many men in the Army with their wives, both serving overseas—can my right hon. Friend look at the matter with a little more sympathy?

Sir J. Griģģ: No, Sir. In addition to the question of shipping accommodation, there is the question of fairness, and that weighs with me a great deal.

Family Allowances (A.C.I. 440)

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that A.C.I. 440/43 has in operation tended to prejudice reconciliation of estranged married persons oWinģ to the facilities afforded to soldiers for stopping allowances so lightening their matrimonial responsibilities and tending to hasten permanent estrangement through court proceedings; and will he examine into the working of this instruction by a conference of welfare officers.

Sir J. Griģģ: One of the objects of this Army Council Instruction was to facilitate reconciliation and it specifically provides that family allowance shall continue in issue while reconciliation is attempted. The operation of the Army Council Instruction is kept under constant review by welfare officers and others in order to ensure that it achieves its purpose, and I am not aware that any special conference is necessary.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question emanates from voluntary welfare workers and is based on their genuine anxieties? Can he give such assurance here as will convince them that they are not prevented from making representations to the welfare officer?

Sir J. Griģģ: It is the first time I have ever heard the suggestion that anybody was checked from making representations to the welfare officer. I cannot conceive what machinery exists that would check such representations.

Mr. Bellenģer: Is there not a later Army Council Instruction which now permits family allowances, if the man is willing to pay the allotment?

Sir J. Griģģ: I would be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would put that question down. I do not like answering questions about these regulations without notice, because they are very complicated, as the hon. Gentleman has reason to know.

Co-belliģerents (British Uniforms)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that Co-belliģerents will not be supplied with British battle-dress; and that if clothing is required it will be not recognisable as British uniform.

Sir J. Griģģ: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Co-belliģerents will be clothed in reconditioned British Army clothing dyed spruce green.

Road Accident (Liability)

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to adjudicate upon the case of Private Wilson, of the A.T.S., who had been involved in an accident while driving a lorry on duty which resulted in the death of one of her colleagues, to which his attention was first called upon by the hon. and gallant Member for East, Renfrewshire in July of last year and repeatedly since.

Sir J. Griģģ: The case of Private Wilson has been most carefully considered, but I regret that I am unable to take any action to assist her. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware the War Department stands behind its employees in cases in which a civilian employer would be liable, but I am advised that a civilian employer would not be liable in the circumstances of the present case.

Major Lloyd: Is it not rather a shame that when a girl, driving on duty for the War Office, unfortunately gets involved in an accident through no fault of her own, and is then charged by the relatives of


the person who was killed as a result of the accident, the War Office accepts no responsibility? Surely that is all wrong.

Sir J. Griģģ: That is as may be. That is a matter of opinion, and it is also a matter of practice which affects all the Departments, and not only the War Office.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely the Minister would agree that the State should give a little more consideration to its servant than the ordinary, robber capitalist employer would be expected to give? Is it not necessary for the State to give more attention?

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend say why an employer would not be liable?

Sir J. Griģģ: That is a legal matter so perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question on it and I will try to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALARIA (INTER-ALLIED RESEARCH)

Major Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an assurance that to mitigate the ravages of malaria among troops of all races in South-east Asia there exists the closest co-ordination of effort and invention between the medical authorities in the South-western Pacific and South-eastern Asian operational zones; and what steps have been taken to stimulate and co-ordinate continuous inter-allied anti-malarial research in all directions.

Sir J. Griģģ: The British, Indian, Australian and American authorities are very much alive to the dangers of malaria and much work is being devoted to its prevention and treatment. Close liaison between the authorities is maintained partly by the Exchanģe of information about research activities and partly by frequent visits of experts to the theatres of war concerned and from one country to another.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORCES BOOK CLUB

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War with reference to the book by Leonard Barnes about the solution of the problem of nationalities in the Soviet Union, which he informed the House on

the 16th February 1943 the Forces Book Club proposed to issue, whether he is aware that the Forces Book Club a few weeks later decided, without even seeing the manuscript, not to issue the book; why this decision was made; and whether he will now arrange for the book to be issued.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Forces Book Club had ceased to exist by the time this book was available for publication.

Mr. Pritt: Is it not plain that the right hon. Gentleman was led to make a statement on 16th February which has no foundation in fact?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not in the slightest degree. I said that the two books would be published in future, but within a month the Forces Book Club had shut down subscriptions and it was finally wound up before the second of the two books was available.

Mr. Pritt: Is it not a fact that within three weeks of the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Forces Book Club had decided to issue the book, it decided, without seeing the manuscript, to reject it, and that it did, in fact, reject it?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (MAIL)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that mail from home is not reaching those Italian prisoners in this country whose relatives are in Italian territory liberated by the Allies, such territory being no longer within the scope of the International Red Cross, although mail from home still reaches those prisoners whose relatives are in enemy territory; that this has a bad effect on the men's morale and, consequently, on their agricultural work; and if he will request the Allied Control Commission or the Badoglio Government to facilitate the transmission of such mail.

Sir J. Griģģ: The hon. Member's Question suggests that the Germans allow letters to be sent from Italy to prisoners in this country but that the Allies do not. The reverse is the case. Only a minority of the Italian prisoners in this country have their homes in the parts of Italy under Allied Control, but this minority


has received 93,000 items of mail from their families in the last months and a further 85,000 items have just arrived in this country and are now being censored. Prisoners have received no mail from those parts of Italy in German occupation either through the Red Cross or any other channels, except, of course, mail which had left the country before the Germans took over.

Mr. Driberģ: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases precisely as I have described, have occurred in certain camps?

Sir J. Griģģ: I have nothing whatever to add to the information given here, which is the exact contrary to what the hon. Gentleman asserts.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housinģ

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is considering ways and means of simplifying the procedure for the approval of building plans by his Department, and a view to avoiding delays in obtaining decisions.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am always willing to simplify and expedite procedure with a view to the avoidance of delays, but I am not aware that avoidable delays are in fact taking place in the approval of building plans. The plans of the 1000 houses included in the 1943 programme were approved within a day or two of their receipt by the Department of Health, and the Department have offered to supply plans to those authorities sharing in the new programme of 1,000 houses, who do not already have plans of their own. But if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Major Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this Question has been put as a result of the pre-war experience of local authorities and not as a result of recent experience, of which my right hon. Friend has every reason to be proud and satisfied?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer the hypothetical question about pre-war conditions. I am dealing with the position to-day.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in contemplation to facilitate the construction of houses by private enterprise on the largest possible scale immediately sufficient labour and material are available; and whether he will give immediate consideration to a revision of the present rating system.

Mr. Johnston: I am asking the Scottish Housinģ Advisory Committee to consider the measures required to encourage the provision of houses for owner occupation. This inquiry will be closely associated with the work of the Committee on Valuation and Rating, under the chairmanship of the Dean of Faculty, who are considering the effect of the existing system of rating on the provision of houses, and whether it is practicable and desirable to limit the maximum amount payable in respect of owners' rates.

Major Lloyd: Would my right hon. Friend accept the statement that until something definite is done in this direction no progress can be expected by private enterprise in Housinģ?

Mr. Johnston: I do not think I can accept that as a complete statement. The Dean of Faculty's Committee is considering the particular point about rating, which is of major importance.

Mr. McKinlay: During the last 30 years of Scottish Office control of Housinģ by people not unfriendly to landlords, is it not a fact that private enterprise could not substantiate its claim?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very serious condition that exists in Housinģ, would it not be desirable to keep Housinģ programmes under the control of local authorities and of the Secretary of State, and to keep private enterprise people out of them altogether?

Herrinģ FishinģIndustry (Report)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report on the Herrinģ FishinģIndustry will be published.

Mr. Johnston: The Report is being presented to Parliament and I understand that copies of it will be available to-day in the Vote Office after Questions.

Captain Cobb: Will the publication of this Report have any effect on the amount of herring available to the public?

Fishinģ Harbours (Maintenance)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a committee to inquire into the general condition and the financial position of the Fishinģ ports and harbours in Scotland and to make recommendations with the object of ensuring that they are adequately developed and maintained in a proper state of efficiency after the war.

Mr. Johnston: The condition of fishery piers and harbours throughout Scotland is kept under constant review by visiting officers of the Scottish Home Department and financial assistance is provided where necessary to enable essential repairs to be carried out. In addition assistance has been given in certain cases to the local authorities concerned under the Government scheme for ensuring the maintenance of essential local services. The future of these harbours will be considered in connection with the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Herring Industry and the Report of the Committee which is at present considering the special problems of the Scottish white Fishinģ industry.

Mr. Boothby: In considering the future of the Fishinģ industry, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the vital necessity of keeping the ports and harbours in a good state of efficiency after the war, and therefore of writing off their pre-war debts?

Mr. Johnston: To the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question I can give an affirmative answer. Of the second part, I should like notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS AND ELECTRICITY METERS (CHARGES)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will confer with the appropriate authorities with a view to obtaining all the relevant facts concerning gas and electricity meters which are on hire to householders throughout the country, having regard to the fact that many of these meters are 20 years old and that the original cost has been repaid by householders several times over; and whether he will consider introducing legislation whereby after an agreed period of seven to 10 years of payment meters became the property of the householders concerned.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd Georģe): It is the practice of gas and electricity undertakings in fixing meter rents to have regard to expenses other than the prime cost of the meter, e.g., the cost of fixing, reading, maintenance, etc. In the case of pre-payment meters, there is also the heavy cost of collecting the coins. I cannot, therefore, accept the implication underlying the first part of the question.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not realise that some rearrangement of this matter is rather overdue? Prior to the outbreak of war there was an overwhelming demand for reconsideration, and it was urged that this matter should be looked into. I cannot accept the Minister's statement.

Major Lloyd Georģe: Without entering into a discussion on the subject, I cannot accept the statement of my hon. Friend either. There are other costs, besides the costs of the meter.

Mr. A. Edwards: Does the Minister consider that these meters are not fully paid for in 10 years?

Major Lloyd Georģe: It is not an uncommon practice; I am not saying it is a perfect one. It is not only the cost of the meter; there is constant maintenance and in some cases there is a collection of moneys. The practice varies. Some companies charge rent, others do not.

Mr. De la Bère: Should it not be clearly shown what the householders are really paying for? The whole thing is unsatisfactory.

Mr. E. Walkden: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that most of the joint electricity authorities have already ceased to charge for ordinary quarterly meters but continue the practice of charging for prepayment meters, which is not unreasonable, but that private gas companies still continue to charge for gas meters the normal rent charged for the last 25 years?

Major Lloyd Georģe: So far as gas is concerned the practice of most companies is to charge rent. It has some effect on the sliding system of charges.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister say how many joint electricity authorities there are? I understand there are only two; and in that case can he say what "most" means?

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the inadequate nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to relieve the anxiety of relatives of prisoners of war at present aroused by the division of responsibility for matters affecting prisoners of war between several Departments, he will arrange for a single Minister to be entrusted with responsibility for the welfare of prisoners and for co-ordinating the activities of all Departments and organizations concerned with their interests.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer which I gave on 30th November last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles).

Sir Irvinģ Albery: Have the Government considered the desirability of putting this administration under the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. Attlee: As at present advised, we consider the present arrangements are the most satisfactory.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that the responsibility is at present divided between four Departments; and does he not consider that likely to arouse apprehension in the minds of the relatives, because there is sometimes overlapping?

Mr. Attlee: That seems to be a repetition of the original Question.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Postmaster-General whether family photographs may now be sent to prisoners of war in Japanese hands.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Robert Grimston): There is no objection so far as British censorship is concerned to unmounted personal photographs being enclosed in letters to prisoners of war and civilian internees in Japanese hands. Such slight information as I have suggests that photographs will not be stopped by the Japanese. I am endeavouring to obtain confirmation on this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general feeling in the British Colonial Empire that His Majesty's Government have been far too little concerned with their interests in the last quarter of a century, he will move to appoint a Select Committee to examine the machinery at the centre responsible for colonial interests in order to see whether this failure to have a virile policy is due to the Colonial Secretaries in Office, the Colonial Office, the Cabinet or the Treasury and to make recommendations for the future.

Mr. Attlee: The policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Colonies has several times been the subject of recent debate in this House, and I regret that I should not be prepared to divert the energies now concentrated on present and future Colonial problems to a study of possible shortcomings in the past.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is useless to initiate policy for the future, if the machinery of government is inadequate to put it into operation, and that we have paid lip service to the Colonies for years and have done very little about them?

Sir Alfred Beit: Does this question not entirely ignore the benefits which will be conferred by the Colonial Development and Welfare Act?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION COMMITTEE

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will appoint an additional member to the Television Committee to represent the interests of the user.

Mr. Attlee: This Committee is an official one which is primarily concerned with technical matters. It would not be appropriate, nor at this stage is it necessary, to add representatives of outside interests.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will this Committee report to this House in due course, and if so, when may that report be expected?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question down.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: Has this Committee anything whatever to do with the future of television; and if it has some-


thing to do with the future of television does not the right hon. Gentleman think the Committee should have on it members representing the general public and their interests?

Mr. Attlee: It is a purely technical Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Armorial Bearinģs Duty (Abolition)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make a statement about the abolition of the armorial Bearinģs duty.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, should not the last word of this Question be left out?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): In accordance with the promise made by my predecessor during the Debates on the Finance Bill, 1943, consultations have taken place with representatives of the local authorities, to whom, in England and Wales, the proceeds of the Armorial Bearinģs Duty accrue. In Scotland the proceeds accrue to the Exchequer. As a result, I have decided to include in the Finance Bill for 1944 a clause which will abolish the Duty as from the 1st January, 1945. I shall also propose the abolition, as from the same date, of the Carriage Licence Duties, the proceeds of which accrue to the Exchequer.

Sir Percy Harris: What advantage to the public will accrue by abolishing this duty? However small the revenue from it may be, can it not be called the taxation of a luxury?

Sir J. Anderson: It is a small matter. The whole subject will be debatable in due course.

Sir H. Williams: Is this intended as a consolation prize for Lord Hartington?

Farmers (Income Tax)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will adjust farmers' Income Tax so as to make some allowance to compensate them for the dissipation of their capital by the exceptional use of the store of fertility in their land in the present emergency.

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot see my way to propose an allowance such as is re-

ferred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. I may remind my hon. Friend that any manuring expenditure that may be necessitated by loss of fertility would be allowed as revenue expenditure as and when incurred.

Sir I. Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the very conciliatory speech he made at the end of the Debate on agriculture and the expectations he created that he would give farmers some concessions in the Budget; and will he take this suggestion and others into account?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly. The consultations to which I then referred have been taking place.

Treasury Documents (Protection)

Mr. Leach: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he can assure the House that adequate steps have been taken to ensure the protection against fire or enemy action of vital documents, particularly those relating to National Savings, which are in the charge of his Department.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Exchanģe Rates (British Representatives Abroad)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the names of the countries in which our Exchanģe has been tied to that of the country concerned; and whether he will give an assurance that in future adequate financial protection will be given to our diplomatic, military, air and commercial missions, in order that a wise financial policy in itself shall no longer injuriously affect those who represent the interests of this country.

Sir J. Anderson: I am not sure if I correctly understand the first sentence of the hon. Lady's Question, but, in fact, the relation of sterling to almost all foreign currencies is now constant. It is true that prices in many countries have risen disproportionately, but the rates of allowances to staff serving abroad are kept constantly under review to take account of this and other factors.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether "constantly under review" denotes action; and whether, in fact, he is certain that his answer is really correct?

Sir J. Anderson: Action is taken in every appropriate case.

Members of Parliament (Expense Allowances)

Mr. Alfred Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why particulars of moneys paid to Members of Parliament for expenses whilst engaged on Government business are not available to Members; and if he will reconsider the position with a view to giving the total amount paid to date under such account.

Sir J. Anderson: It would be a heavy and unprofitable task to keep an adequate central record of all this information, and I certainly cannot undertake to give the total of past payments. I will, however, consider the form in which a list can be made available to the House, shoWinģ the sums payable to those Members for whom regular expense allowances have been authorised.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Chancellor not aware that the impression has gone abroad, rightly or wrongly, that very considerable sums of money are received by these people, and that it is very unfair to the people concerned if a statement is not available to the public?

Sir J. Anderson: I will see what I can do.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Chancellor state what amount is allowed per day for these individuals? Is he aware that when I went to Russia, I was paid two guineas a day?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. I will see that the statement shows the amount per day where there is a regular expenses allowance.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Chancellor give us a guide as to how to get on the list?

Mr. Gallacher: If the Chancellor considers providing such information, would it not be desirable also to provide information as to the expenses which Members are getting from outside organisations?

Sir H. Williams: Can the Chancellor say whether the two guineas per day allowed in Russia, compared with the lower figure here, was due to the cost of living being much higher in Russia?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL CURRENCY (CONFERENCE)

Sir I. Albery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give any information concerning the convening of an International Monetary Conference in the United States of America.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I have not as yet anything further to report about the convening of such a Conference.

Sir I. Albery: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he has no knowledge of any meeting being convened?

Sir J. Anderson: There has been no meeting so far as I am concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES, RURAL AREAS

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what progress has been made with plans for the more general supply of electricity in rural areas for domestic and farm purposes.

Major Lloyd Georģe: I have as yet nothing to add to the reply which I gave my hon. Friend on 18th January.

Sir P. Hurd: Does not the Minister think it is about time the public knew what plans are in preparation in this important matter?

Major Lloyd Georģe: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a very big question. I can assure him that a tremendous amount of work is being done on it.

Mr. De la Bère: Why is it that my right hon. and gallant Friend permits the electricity undertakings to flout the House of Commons year after year?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL TRUST (PROPERTIES)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning the number of private houses and the total acreage of land presented to the National Trust since the outbreak of war.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planninģ (Mr. Henry Strauss): My right hon. Friend is informed by the National Trust that 45 properties, comprising 34,125 acres, have been presented to them since the outbreak of war. Among them are 16


historic houses, but I cannot say how many cottages, farmhouses, etc., may be included in the larger estates.

Mrs. Keir: Will my hon. Friend circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Strauss: I could not promise to do that, This is not a matter for which a Government Department is responsible. I have these figures by courtesy of the National Trust. But it may be that I can give my hon. Friend some further information.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID SHELTERS, LONDON

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all the completed air-raid shelters in London of the large type are available for present use.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government have naturally kept this matter under review. Deep shelter construction was authorised by the Government at the height of the blitz of 1940–41, in anticipation of the possibility of still heavier all-night air attacks in 1941–42. This provision on a limited scale and not necessarily for local residents was made as an insurance or reserve for such a contingency. That contingency has not yet arisen, but we have recently been subjected to short and sharp raids, which have been by no means as long nor as heavy as in 1940–41.
For two reasons it has been decided, after consideration, not to open these deep shelters for public use, at any rate at this juncture. Firstly, there is a sufficiency of shelter of various kinds now available on an "alert."' Steps have been taken since 1941 further to strengthen surface shelters and recent experience has shown that they afford very good protection: more use might with advantage be made of them. Secondly, some of the deep shelter accommodation is equipped and reserved, and more may have to be equipped and reserved, for the accommodation of vital operational war services which must be maintained continuously in action in all circumstances. I am sure that these considerations will be well understood by the people of London, to whose courage, resource and public spirit on this, as on earlier occasions, I would wish to pay my tribute.

Mr. Granville: While thanking the Home Secretary for that very full answer, might I ask whether he will look into the question of putting more bunks into underground stations?

Mr. H. Morrison: I will consider that. There was an adjustment made during the lull period because there are traffic difficulties. I will look into the point.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Has not the recent return of bombing shown again that the safest place for the public to shelter is in or near their own homes, rather than collecting in large numbers in these shelters?

Mr. H. Morrison: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; and, judging by the conduct of most of them, I think that is the general view of the people of London.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: Are not people in the surface shelters much more likely to be able to help fire guards in an emergency?

Mr. H. Morrison: That is also a point for consideration. Increasing numbers of citizens are on duty on the surface, of course, and if we did get to the point of a universal demand for deep shelters, we could not meet it; and if we did, we should gravely impede the defence.

Mr. Maxton: Are there not thousands of youngsters back in London, who are not wanted for fireguard or anything else, and who could go down into these deep shelters?

Mr. H. Morrison: In regard to deep shelter accommodation, that is the principle on which we go, but it does not always come off.

Mr. Maxton: What about one shelter in my constituency, which has never been used at all?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend, I think, did not listen to my answer.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the greatest publicity is given to this matter, particularly in the London area, as a great number of people have been doubtful and anxious about the matter on which the right hon. Gentleman has now given information?

Mr. H. Morrison: I quite agree. I hope that the most extensive publicity will be given to it. My experience is that if there is a good reason, people will respond; but they want to know why.

Mr. E. Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend see that small children and women, such as were on the platforms of underground stations last night, sleeping on the floor, are directed to more comfortable shelters, which exist nearby, but of which, apparently, they do not know? Will he see that information about such shelters is conveyed to them, so that this nuisance may be removed?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am sure the wardens do their best. Londoners are very well behaved, but if I ordered them about too much, perhaps they would not be so good.

Mr. Thorne: Have all the Ministers deep air-raid shelters?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

AIR ESTIMATES, 1944

Order for Committee read.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The discussion of the Estimates for the three Service Departments will proceed this year in the knowledge that we are in all probability approaching the climax of the war—a period which will demand from every one of us, and from all the people of this country, the greatest possible concentration of effort of which we are capable. So we Service Ministers come to the House to ask for supplies, and for a continuance of that support from Parliament without which we can do nothing, and which has been generously vouchsafed to us in the most dangerous crises of the war. Nominally, we ask for money. In practice, as, of course, the House knows, no vote of money will increase the manpower and woman-power at the country's disposal, and it is my principal task to-day to account for the very large resources of man-power which air operations have required during the last year.
Parliament has staked heavily on the Royal Air Force during this war. In peace, before rearmament started, the vote for air supplies was about £17,000,000 a year: that is, about half the then Army Vote, and little more than a third of the Vote for the Navy. To-day, the man-power allotted to the Ministry of Aircraft Production is larger than the whole labour force of the Ministry of Supply, which, in its turn, is greater than the man-power allotted for shipbuilding, both for the Navy and for the Merchant Service. Of the resources allotted to the air war the largest share is given to Bomber Command. Hon. Members will, therefore, expect me, before I sit down, to give the House some account of the bomber offen-

sive, our cardinal effort during the past year.
I do not wish to keep the House too long and I must necessarily omit many fields in which I should have wished to bring to the notice of the House, brave deeds and hard work well done. In particular, I wish time allowed me to speak of the exploits of our comrades-in-arms, the Polish, Czech, French, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, Greek and Yugoslav squadrons. Canada, Australia New Zealand, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia—cur partners in vast overseas training organisations—have squadrons fighting alongside our own, as do the squadrons of the Indian Air Force in the Far Eastern theatre. In addition, many fine Dominion crews, and crews from the Indian and Colonial Empire, are fighting in Royal Air Force squadrons.
Now there are those who feel that we are rather remiss, when, in mentioning to Parliament some operations or series of operations as having been carried out by the Royal Air Force, we do not specifically mention the Allied and Dominion squadrons and crews which have been engaged. I only wish it were practicable to make these specific acknowledgments on every occasion; but I am sure that the House bears in mind these Allied, Dominion, Indian and Colonial squadrons and crews in the course of our discussions of the war in the air. They have won great renown. They have earned the lasting respect of their British comrades in arms and their valiant deeds will always be remembered with thankful hearts by the British people. Inadequate also will be the mention I shall make of the exploits of our American Allies, whose arms have in these last weeks won such resounding success in two hemispheres. I would wish also to speak, if time allowed, of the comradeship and co-operation which exists between the British and the United States Air Forces, but hon. Members will wish, as I must select and compress my material, that I should, as far as possible, confine myself to the affairs of the Service for which I have the honour to be answerable to Parliament.
I will begin by speaking of the administrative machine by which our operations are sustained, and confine myself to two or three particular matters which seem to deserve special mention at the present time. The first is our building


programme. There is nothing that brings home more closely that this island is a front line base of operations than the fact that, everywhere you go, you find one of our airfields. It has not been a pleasant thing for the people of this country to have their land turned into an air base. We have had to dispossess people of their land, their houses, and their crops, often with little notice and with no reprieve. I well understand the feelings of the farmers, who have been at pains for many years to keep their land in good heart, and have ploughed and sown crops to feed us, only to find that their fields are to be taken from them and covered with concrete and buildings; while others have lost their homes, in which they have spent their lives and brought up their children and in which their families may have lived, as owners or tenants, for generations. Cheerfully as these sacrifices have been borne, it has been a distasteful task to impose them, and I am glad to say that we have almost reached the end of our territorial demands.
Four-and-a-half years ago, we started the most gigantic civil engineering and building programme ever undertaken in this country. This programme is now nearing completion, and it is right that I should mention to the House those which have contributed to it—the staffs of the Air Ministry, under Air Chief Marshal Courtney and Mr. Holloway, the Director-General of Works, who planned and directed it, and the employers and workmen who carried it out. We hear much about Germany's Todt Organisation, but let me say a word for the Air Ministry Works Organisation. Since the war began, working mainly through building and civil engineering contractors, it has erected 1,000,000 buildings and laid down concrete tracks equivalent to a 30-foot road running from here to Pekin. Of course, given enough time and enough labour and materials, any building programme can be carried out, but, as the House well knows, none of these commodities has been in ample supply. It is planning, ingenuity, and, above all, standardisation, wherever standardisation was in any way possible, that has carried the programme through.
We have been able to fit so many bases, for the American Air Forces as well as our own, into this small island because so

much of our training has been carried on outside it, in the Dominions and in the United States. Let me again, as on previous occasions, pay my acknowledgements to the Canadian Government for their imaginative and vigorous administration of the Joint Air Training Plan. Our problem of providing training facilities to relieve the shortage of crews from which we suffered at the beginning of the war, and to match our expanding Air Force, would never have been solved without that help.
At the beginning of our training expansion, we were short of airfields, training aircraft, and, most important of all, we were short of experienced instructors. The best instructors had to be planted out in the new schools all over the Empire. New men had to be trained and this heavy dilution of training experience was inevitably accompanied by an increase in the rate of accidents. Besides the pressure of war and the dilution of instructors, we had to contend with a great increase in night flying and with the tendency of aircraft to become heavier, faster and more complex in their equipment. Nevertheless, as the training organisation became consolidated on its new and wider foundations, we surmounted these difficulties and reversed the upward trend of the accident rate. The rate for the whole Royal Air Force at home—most remarkably, the accident rate at night—has steadily fallen in the last two years. It was 30 per cent. lower in 1943 than it was in 1942, and now it is lower than it has been at any time during the war.
Much credit for the fall in the accident rate is due to the Accidents Inspectorate and to the staffs who have analysed the causes and trend of accidents so that remedies in the aircraft or in training methods can be applied. Far training is the secret of air safety, and Air Marshal Garrod, the first Air Member for Training, and his successor, Air Marshal Drummond, and their training staffs, and the two Training Commands of the Royal Air Force at home, and those in the Dominions, may well feel proud of their work. In the Air Ministry, we are all training conscious, some might say training mad. We have developed every means of instruction—synthetic aids, pamphlets, and even games.
As new aircraft, new weapons and new gadgets are introduced, we have to keep pace with them. If the Minister of Aircraft Production presents us with, say, a new automatic homing device, he gives us at the same time a number of training problems to solve. It will, in the end, save lives and aircraft, but, before we introduce it, pamphlets must be issued to all parts of the world on how to work it, service it, and repair it; we must train instructors, issue warnings on how not to mis-use it and fit all this complicated instruction into a curriculum through which thousands of pupils are passing, without disturbing the steady flow through the machine. But though the statistics show that the accident rate is declining, we are not satisfied. We do not forgot that every accident represents a lamentable waste, certainly of labour and materials and perhaps of precious life and skill. Moreover, as our aircraft become larger more lives are lost every time an accident occurs. It is our duty to see that each member of a crew, whose lives may depend on any one of their number, is as skilled, as practised, and as swift in thought and action as training can make him.
Another source of wastage which has been reduced is sickness. Though more of our units are serving overseas, often in unhealthy areas and under active war conditions, we have had, during the last 12 months, fewer sick than at any other time since the outbreak of war. That certainly means much in avoidance of pain and suffering; but it also means the addition of several thousands of men and women to our resources. The Royal Air Force owes a great debt to the medical profession, both to those members of it whose career lies in the Royal Air Force Medical Branch, and to the many doctors and surgeons who have joined us since the war started. Remarkable strides have been made in the rehabilitation of men suffering from burns, severe wounds and accidents. Our rehabilitation centres work on the principle that it is not enough that a broken limb or a torn ligament or burnt fingers should be mended, if the patient is, nevertheless, to limp or lose part of his skill of hand for the rest of his days. Hon. Members know the tragedy of industrial cases, the fear that haunts the patient that he will never get back to full work again, and they will be glad to know that over 80 per cent. of the patients

in our centres have been able to get back to full duties, in a shorter time than, a few years ago, we should have believed possible. So, under the wise and vigorous leadership of Air Marshal Sir Harold Whittingham, the Director General of Medical Services, and with the unsparing and devoted help of the Royal Air Force Nursing Service, our doctors and our dentists, who also have found scope in our midst for original ideas and practices, contrive not only to heal, but also to pievent sickness and thus to strengthen the Royal Air Force for battle.
It is some time since I brought to the attention of the House the splendid work performed by our Medical Services, and I would now revert to a subject, on which I made the first announcement last year, and that is, the creation and the work of Transport Command. This Command has grown rapidly, but not more rapidly than the demand for its services. It is being expanded to meet the future requirements of the Royal Air Force in this theatre of war, to meet the ever-increasing requirements of the Mediterranean, and the still more rapidly increasing requirements of the South-Eastern Asia Command, and, of course, it still remains responsible for the delivery of aircraft across the North and South Atlantic. Flying largely on established routes, its aircraft are available at any time to be thrown into the battle—carrying supplies to the battle front and moving wounded to the rear. They were in the forefront of the expedition to Italy, they landed under fire on the beaches at Salerno; more recently in Burma, working with the United States Army Transport Command, they fed and supported the Seventh Indian Division and so had their share in the Army's great victory in Arakan; with the long range delivery of aircraft and of a wide range of engines and spares for our squadrons—these are the tasks of Transport Command. Already the Command has earned the status which it enjoys of a fully operational Command of the Royal Air Force, and it will have a big part to play in future operations.
In war-time all air transport is war transport; we have none to spare for purely peaceful purposes; but the burden of air transportation is shared with Transport Command by the British Overseas Airways Corporation. The experience, organisation and resources of each are pooled, and each is allotted the task it


can best perform. When there is a special war job to be done, or special services to be run to forward areas, Transport Command is ready for them. The British Overseas Airways Corporation sticks to the established routes, its operations and services being dove-tailed into those of Transport Command. The fleet of the British Overseas Airways Corporation is gradually being modernised and the number of types of which it is composed has been reduced from 23 to 17 in the past year. The route mileage of the British Overseas Airways Corporation increased by over 20 per cent. in the last year, and, in fact, was, in 1943, four times as great as the combined route mileage of Imperial Airways and British Airways in 1938. That does not look like putting civil aviation into cold storage! Their routes include the North Atlantic Service, on which they have flown regularly during the whole of three winters, services to Stockholm, to Lisbon, down the West Coast of Africa, to Cairo and on to Turkey in the North and India in the South, besides the important route from Durban up the East coast of Africa to Cairo, and so on by Bagdad and Basra to Karachi. So the horizons of the British Overseas Airways Corporation are in no respect narrowed by the co-existence of Transport Command but are, on the contrary, expanding, and its resources are groWinģ.
Meanwhile we mainly depend, and we still, for many years to come, shall depend on sea transport for the carriage of our food, our raw materials, and our supplies to every theatre of war. Therefore, the House will expect me to refer to the achievements of Coastal Command and to our close working partnership with the Royal Navy in the Battle of the Atlantic. Hon. Members will have noticed from the accounts of operations against U-boats that the battle of the Atlantic is not a series of single combats between the U-boat and the aircraft or the warship, but is made up of prolonged engagements over thousands of miles of sea, in which the work of the surface forces is at every stage integrated with the work of aircraft. The aircraft and the escort vessel are nicely complementary; the escort vessel carries a bigger punch, and can track down a U-boat, once detected, even though submerged, but the range of vision of the escort vessel is limited; the aircraft

is less certain of its kill but has, of course, an immensely greater range of vision and a better chance of surprising the enemy. A convoy may be assailed along the whole route across the ocean, first by U-boats and then by bombers, and, at every stage, the work of the air and escort vessels on the surface is interlocked. Never has there been a happier period of relations between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force than in the past year. Like the harmony which prevails between land and air forces, the combination of air and naval power is the fruit, not of radical changes of organisation or of direction from above, but of the steady efforts of Commanders and Staff Officers of the two Services engaged in the pursuit of a common enemy.
The war against the submarine is especially a war of wits. The enemy has sprung surprises on us—but we have sprung still more surprises on him. We hope to spring more yet. The many units of Coastal Command, in which American squadrons are now serving alongside our own, stretching from Iceland to Gibraltar and the Azores, sweeping the whole of the. Atlantic, have a long task of vigilance, and of danger too. Most of their work—perhaps the most trying part—is taken up with long and uneventful sweeps over barren seas, but there are many occasions when they have to meet formidable opposition. They fly in low, these coastal crews, to drop their depth charges. The Germans have increased the numbers of anti-aircraft guns carried by their U-boats in order to force up the coastal crews to heights at which the accuracy of their bombing would fall off. But the crews have roundly declared that they will not be forced up—and they have not been forced up. I would recall the action, for which the Victoria Cross was awarded to Flying Officer Trigg, when he pressed home his attack with absolute disregard of the heavy anti-aircraft armament with which U-boats are now armed, though he knew that his aircraft was already hit and in flames and that his only course of safety lay in breaking off the engagement. Admiral Doenitz, the Commander in Chief of the German Navy is reported to have said—though I cannot for the life of me understand how an officer who I suppose to be competent can have made such a remark—that an aeroplane could no more attack a submarine than a crow a mole.


The mole is turning himself into a porcupine, but he still cannot escape Coastal Command's talons.
In operating against surface shipping, the Command has had a year of extended activity and considerable success. We have been giving careful attention to Germany's coastal traffic, particularly the route from the iron mines of Norway to the Rhine ports, and together the Beau-fighters of Coastal Command, with their great variety of armament, and the sea-mining aircraft of Bomber Command have sunk quite a proportion of this traffic. I do not believe all I read about the prospects of the Germans leaving Norway, but the dangers of the sea passage have certainly diminished its usefulness to them.
The House May be sure that we are doing all we 'can to see that the experience gained in Coastal Command is used in that other theatre of air and sea warfare, the Far East. We look forward to the day when victory in Europe will release more of our air forces to fight the Japanese. We foresee that the great expanses of the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean will give play to a broader sweep of air power than the congested skies of Europe. Coastal Command's navigational skill, and practice in naval liaison, will be very much in demand, and must be diffused as widely as possible.
Meanwhile, we have been building up our forces in the Far Eastern theatre and the Japanese have lost the air superiority they enjoyed in 1942. A notable event was the arrival of Spitfires in this theatre. The squadrons we sent to Australia acquitted themselves well in attacks which the Japanese made on Port Darwin and other towns, and more recently in Burma Spitfires appeared where the Japanese had been expecting Hurricanes, and in their first two encounters these Spitfires destroyed 21 of the enemy for the loss of only three of their own. As fast as we can, we shall send more Spitfires. One thing is certain; we shall not forget that in our hour of need Australia sent her forces across the world to help us, and we shall not relax our efforts until our common enemies are utterly defeated.
In the Mediterranean, our air forces have played a vital part in the great events of the past year. The surrender in Tunis of an enemy army of 250,000

men was followed by great amphibious operations, each successfully covered by air power. They knocked Italy out of the war and have drawn down to the Italian fronts large enemy forces badly needed elsewhere. As the Prime Minister said last week, no less than seven extra divisions have been brought down for a determined attempt to destroy our bridgehead.
Besides these forces, we are fighting in that theatre another enemy, the weather. Air Marshal Slessor, the Deputy Commander-in-Chief, under General Eaker, of the Allied Air Forces in the Mediterranean, remarks in a recent report that the present phase of the campaign reminds him of his experience in Waziristan, except that the weather is like a bad English February. As the pilots put it, the clouds are stuffed with mountains. The airmen searching the valleys and ravines for the enemy positions, so far from seeing their target, cannot even see which is valley and which is mountainside. Let us not expect the impossible of them. The Army do not; I am told that the understanding between the air and ground forces is excellent. The good weather should come soon, and then we shall see whether our air superiority will not do again what it did in 1943.
It is often interesting, if sometimes disconcerting, to see ourselves as others see us, and the House will be interested to know how the different methods employed by the enemy and the Royal Air Force in land campaigns have struck so discerning and experienced an observer as General Arnold, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Force.
Writing in his recent formal report to the Secretary of War of the United States of the early Libyan campaigns, he says that the enemy kept his air forces under the direct command of the ground forces.
Local Army commanders," he says, "wasted air power in penny packets to protect their own sectors or to help advance small detachments. The Royal Air Force, employed in concentrated mass as a true air force should be, completely destroyed some 1,100 Italian planes," He adds, "Many of our present ideas about the Tactical Air Force were evolved in the heat of these desert campaigns. There is no doubt that experience and new conditions modify many of our notions, but the present concept of the Tactical Air Force can be regarded as tested and proved in North Africa, Italy and New Guinea.


The Mediterranean campaign has been the chief testing ground for our methods of combining air and surface forces in one great instrument of war. It does not matter whether this instrument is in the hands of a soldier or an airman or a sailor. In this theatre, here at home, the supreme commander will be a soldier, General Eisenhower, but his deputy is Air Chief Marshal Tedder, an airman. What matters is that the air forces should be commanded by an airman and the troops by a soldier, each working to a common plan. The presence of Air Chief Marshal Tedder and of Air Marshal Coningham in this theatre is a guarantee that the methods employed in Air-Army operations in this theatre will be those which have been tested and proved by experience in the Mediterranean theatre.
In this country the Royal Air Force is preparing to play its part, in combination with the Army and the Royal Navy, in the battle for liberating Europe. We have made our dispositions. A year ago we had Fighter Command and Army Co-operation Command. The latter was designed solely for working with the Army. Fighter Command not only defended this country and escorted coastal convoys, but also carried out offensive operations across the Channel. These two Commands have now been combined with the American 9th Air Force into a new organisation described as the Allied Expeditionary Air Force under the command of Air Chief Marshal Leigh-Mallory. This Force has two main components. On the one hand, the 2nd British Tactical Air Force, under the command of Air Marshal Coningham, and the 9th American Air Force, under General Brereton, will be available to support operations on the Continent of Europe; on the other hand, a force for which we have revived the old name of the Air Defence of Great Britain, under the command of Air Marshal Hill, will be responsible for the day and night defence of these islands. We have thus separated and defined the offensive and defensive functions, while at the same time unifying them at the highest level for the great and intricate battles ahead. These squadrons, both in the Allied Expeditionary Air Force and in the Air Defence of Great Britain, are actively engaged in training as well as in operations. They are not standing idly by waiting upon events, but they are con-

stantly attacking objectives in France and the Low Countries, or ships at sea or in harbour, escorting bombers in their attacks on occupied territory, and also giving escort to American bombers on their way out or on their way home from battles over Germany.
In recent weeks the night fighter squadrons of the Air Defence of Great Britain have been tackling what I have frequently warned the House and the public they would have to tackle, a recurrence of the blitz. The kind of attack they have had to meet is one which it is very difficult to counter. Whereas our bombers penetrate hundreds of miles into German territory in a thick stream, fighting all the way into the target, over the target and all the way home, and making while they are over the target concentrated and devastating attacks, the Germans fly very fast across the coast at a great height, twisting and turning, scattering their bombs over London, then diving steeply at maximum speed until they cross the coast at 2,000 feet or less. Probably the whole time spent by any one German bomber over this country is less than 20 minutes.
I do not seek to minimise the hardships and suffering which these attacks bring to many of our people. Some of them have lost their lives, others have lost their homes, in the recent raids. It is little consolation to a family which has suffered to be told that the attack was of no possible significance in the course of the war. On the contrary, the people who have suffered are entitled to the assurance that we keep our defences in the best possible order, and I can give this assurance to the House, not that our defences are perfect but that we are constantly exerting ourselves to improve them by every imaginable contrivance, that there has been a steady growth of improvement from the earliest days of the blitz at the beginning of the war until now, that that improvement is going on, and that our superb night fighter squadrons keep themselves at the highest pitch of efficiency.
Meanwhile, remembering the extraordinary difficulties, which I have attempted to describe to the House, of countering this form of haphazard and militarily futile attack, the rate of casualties inflicted on the enemy is creditable to our night fighter squadrons and to the anti-aircraft gunners and searchlight crews of the Army. The measure of our success


is that in each of the last two months we have been able to inflict on these raiders a higher rate of casualties than all the massed fighter defences of Germany have been able to inflict on our far more numerous bombers penetrating deeply into enemy territory.
On the other hand, we must not believe that the forces which the enemy has sent over here are the greatest strength which he can muster. His power of striking back is far from negligible. I should not wish the country to feel, when the times comes for his efforts to disorganise our preparations and to take the edge off our offensive spirit, that we have been caught unprepared. I shall not say, like Goering, that our defences can ward off any attack. What I can say is that we have foreseen the attack, and whatever shape it may assume, or in whatever weight it may come, we shall be ready to pit our forces against it. Attack, however, is the best form of defence, in the air as well as on land. The only final and complete defence is to destroy the enemy's power at the source. So long as Germany has weapons in her hand some part of her blows must fall upon these islands. We cannot better protect our homes than by increasing the weight of our attack upon Germany.
Meanwhile, the battle which Bomber Command and the United States Army Air Forces are fighting over Germany is on so different a scale that it is impossible to compare it with the German blitz on this country. Huge centres of war industry in the Ruhr, in Hamburg, in Berlin and many other German cities have been obliterated, and in the year under review the United States Army Air Force has entered the battle in full strength. A recent spell of weather of a kind which favours daylight precision bombing also enabled the British and American Bomber Commands to combine both day with night operations and operations from Italian bases with those from British bases. The British and American Commanders were swift to seize this opportunity and to act upon plans which, to my certain knowledge, have been prepared for many months past. It may well be that historians of the future will look back upon this period between the February and the March moons as one of the decisive stages of the whole war.
To assess whether the results we have gained justify the resources we have spent

on our bomber force is not a matter of speculation. I have the impression that our bomber offensive is sometimes thought of as if it were producing no visible results for the time being, but might lead to the enemy's sudden collapse, as if we were hammering at a door in the expectation that the lock might suddenly give way. On the contrary, we are steadily pushing the door open, inch by inch, until we can pass through. Our offensive is producing results which are visible, measurable and progressive.
As soon as possible after our attacks we always photograph the results. We know not merely what factory has been hit—when we can get the photographs, which has been very difficult in recent months oWinģ to the perpetual cloud over Germany—but which shop in the factory and what it was producing. For example, in the recent raid on Stuttgart we know that the Robert Bosch factory, producing the greater part of the magnetos, sparking plugs and fuel pumps for the German Air Force, was put out of action for many months, and the Hesser Maschinenfabrik, producing components for submarine engines, was gutted in the same action. We can also, by piecing together information from one source and another, form an estimate of the production lost by factors that are not shown on a photograph, that is, the man-hours lost through the interruption of communications and food supplies, through disorganisation of administration, and above all through weariness caused by all these factors and by the nervous strain of constant attacks.
In Leipzig, after the great Bomber Command attack of 3rd December, our photographs showed that of the great World's Fair Buildings, which produced components for hundreds of aircraft every month and covered 100 acres of space, not one remained intact; in the American raid on the same town on 20th February the huge Erla complex of factories for producing Messerschmitt 109's was wrecked. In the three great blows which the town of Leipzig sustained in as many months no type of industrial undertaking escaped damage; the railway stations, goods yards and warehouses, tramway depots, gas works and barracks, all essential parts of the war production of that manufacturing centre, are included in the record. The concentrated products of thousands of hours of skilled work, of careful ration-


ing, spoils from the occupied territories, supplies laboriously transported thousands of miles, the precious fraction that gets through our blockade—are all destroyed in one night. Machine tools, generators and transformers, precision instruments, all are buried under a crumpled heap of girders; food, materials, chemicals and timber are piled in a smoking ruin. These are the sinews of war. Repair and replace them the Germans can in the long run, if we let them—some of their efforts at repair have been really remarkable—but it is in these photographs of bomb damage that we can read some, at least, of the reasons why Germany has no longer abundant man-power and materials to throw into the offensive. Repair and defence must have first claim. Far better than capturing or destroying 100 enemy guns in the field, after perhaps they have killed many of our own men, is to destroy them half-completed in the shops, and at the same time the tools with which the enemy could in a month produce 200 more.
And Berlin, the greatest battle of all. Little output can the enemy have been obtaining from its hundreds of factories—those that are still functioning at all—with little efficiency can the administrative centre of the Reich have been directing their vast war machine, when the workpeople, the clerks and the executives know that the morning may see no railways, no trams, no buses running, no electricity, no gas, no water, when the shops are empty, their meals obtained from canteens and their nights spent in a shelter, and their prospects—still greater desolation. Not only have they before their eyes the physical destruction of the emblems of Nazi power, its Chancellories, Brown Houses and Gestapo Headquarters, but in the present confusion and memories of broken promises they see the crack appearing in the Nazi edifice itself.
We should be wearing long faces now if we had lost one quarter of the resources the Germans have lost in the last year. It is not only the overall loss of production and consumption of manpower on repair and replacements; there are many points where the Axis is especially vulnerable, and these points we have not neglected. Some of them have been particularly appropriate—since the specialised targets are usually small—for

attack by day, and it is against such targets, heavily defended because so vital to the enemy, that some of the most successful blows of the American Army Air Forces have been delivered. Ball-bearing factories at Schweinfurt, Stuttgart, Steyr and Villa Perosa, Messerschmitt 109s at Leipzig, Wiener Neustadt and Regensburg, 110s and 410s at Gotha, Brunswick and Augsburg, Focke Wulfs at Oschersleben, Tutow, Anklam and Marienberg, Junkers at Halberstadt and Bernberg, great component, equipment and engine factories for these and other types of aircraft at Berlin—these have been among the chief targets of the British and American bomber offensives, accessible, some of them, from our bases here, some from the Mediterranean, some from both.
In the past year I have drawn attention to the large part of the enemy's resources which our bomber offensive was engaging—a million men engaged in passive defence, hundreds of thousands in making and maintaining fighters and anti-aircraft artillery. The offensive justified itself by the fact alone that we were keeping from the Eastern and Mediterranean fronts aircraft, men and guns that the enemy might have used to turn the battles there. Bomber Command and the United States Bomber Squadrons have compelled the German High Command, as their whole front recoils in the East, to tie down for the protection of their factories full four-fifths of their fighter strength in the West. This is the true strategic employment of air power, turning the course of the land battles by actions fought many hundreds of miles away. Now we can claim not only that we have engaged these forces, but that we have made great gains in spite of them. The effects are identical with those of military occupation; we have destroyed production, we have denied resources, we have interrupted communications and we have carried the war on to German soil.
Certainly, our gains have not been won without losses. From our bombing operations from this country in the last year over 2,500 aircraft have not come back. Taking an average of seven men per aircraft, this means that nearly 18,000 men, drawn from the flower of our manhood, are killed or prisoners. But compare this with the bloody fighting of the Eastern Front, or with the carnage of the last war.


On one day, the 1st July, 1916, we lost on the Somme 21,997 men killed and missing, to secure—I quote the Official History—an advance three and a half miles wide and one mile in depth. Our air crews who have fallen in destroying the weapons of the Nazis at their sources are in the position of the man who dies putting out of action the enfilading machine-gun which is decimating his comrades and so lets the advance go through. I may add that our losses are becoming progressively less heavy compared with the effects we are achieving. The ratio of casualties to the weight of bombs dropped is steadily falling, in spite of the fact that the range of our attacks has been steadily increasing. Berlin received in January of this year, in a single month, as great a weight of bombs as has fallen on London from the beginning of the war till now.
The rising numerical strength of Bomber Command is not, of itself, sufficient to account for these extraordinary achievements. There are other and more important explanations. We have developed navigational aids and safety devices of which I have spoken to the House from year to year as I have introduced these Estimates and the harvest of scientific genius that we were hoping to reap has been reaped. And here a significant point enters. Just as in operations the enemy faces the British and American Forces, not separately but together and acting under one plan and in one battle, so in the scientific field his scientists are pitted not against British and American scientists, but against the combined Anglo-American scientific effort. Pooling between us is complete, one hundred per cent. Thousands of hours are saved because development is not carried out separately on each side of the Atlantic; where one partner makes an advance the other can at once add to it and does not have to catch up on his own. Another great reason to account for the wonderful achievements of Bomber Command is the introduction of the Pathfinder Force and the brilliant conduct of its operations by Air Vice-Marshal Bennett. This has enormously increased the effectiveness of the bomber offensive, It is attributable also to the admirable conduct of our operations by Air Chief Marshal Harris, and his staff and commanders, working under the wise and steadfast direction of the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Charles Portal—and, above all,

to the excellence of the products of our factories. I said above all, perhaps, in the wrong place, because I feel inclined to say above all to the skill and bravery of our crews. Do not be guided by what they themselves say—this talk of "a fair amount of flak, night fighters a bit plentiful, a routine trip." Every man of them knows the dangers of these long flights, the dangers of icing or mechanical failure, and the risk that fog may have covered their bases before they return. To these are added the greatest concentration of guns and searchlights that any Power has ever mustered and a German fighter force much greater than that with which we fought and broke the enemy in the Battle of Britain.
The events of the coming weeks no man can foretell. Already, while the dust and smoke still billow round his shattered factories, the enemy is driving his toiling millions to desperate efforts to recover the ground he has lost. The wounded tiger is dangerous. But there lies before us, now clearly attainable, the glittering prize of air supremacy—the talisman that can paralyse German war industry and war transport, that will clear the road for the progress of the Allied Armies to Berlin.

Mr. Woodburn: The House will have listened to the review that the Minister has just given us of the activities of the Air Force with the greatest interest, and I am quite sure we all feel very humble in our admiration of the splendid part that has been played by the men who have gone out and performed these great operations. It seems we can do little to pay tribute to them. I was very glad that the Minister did not forget to refer to those who are in the front line in London. I have discovered that there is considerable resentment at what seems to be the flippancy with which the present bombing is being treated. As the Minister said, however insignificant it may be in the complete picture of a world war, to the person who is on the spot it is a tragedy of the deepest and most solemn kind, and I think we ought to-day to send out to those people who have been suffering that blitz our sincere sympathy and our hope that they may be able to stand up to, and bear with fortitude, the trials put upon them.
I remember during one of the great blitzes on a Midland town—the whole


place was practically destroyed and there was difficulty in providing the people with food—that at six o'clock at night it was not the question of food or the question of the blitz which worried the people. The greatest disappointment and shock for them came when it was found that on the six o'clock news, nobody mentioned that their town had suffered from the raid. The fact that they had gone through all this suffering and that nobody had had the decency to acknowledge it, was a greater shook to them than the bombs. We have to remember that while the people of this country are prepared to stand up to anything, they do feel that we should acknowledge that they are playing their part in the war as much as those who take part in the more spectacular fighting itself.
There were one or two points on which I had hoped the Minister would touch and which have been points of discussion in this House for many years. The general public are still wondering what has happened in connection with the production or the use of dive-bombers. I find people who are technically qualified and able to judge wondering whether this country is to be equipped in such a fashion as to be able to use this weapon with success in coming operations. It may be that the Minister does not want to advise the enemy of that, but a point that does worry a good many people is whether the promised delivery of dive-bombers from America has ever been realised, and whether those dive-bombers will be available.
Another point which might have been mentioned, and which was much discussed some years ago, is the question of torpedo bombers. As an ordinary man in the street in relation to this affair I have never been able to understand why the bombing of ships in the Pacific has seemed so much more successful than the bombing of ships either in the Mediterranean or in the North Sea. It was said at the time that the Japanese had some special equipment or some special torpedoes which could not be carried by our planes. Have we made progress in this matter of being able to destroy battleships by bombing planes or torpedo planes, or has that point been forgotten in the general building-up of other parts of the Service? We remember the shock our people got as a result of the passing of the "Scharnhorst" and other German battleships

through the North Sea, and the rumours that were current at that time that we had not the equipment capable of sinking them, even if our aircraft could have reached them.

Sir A. Sinclair: They did not pass unscathed. In fact, the "Gneisenau" has never recovered from the blows which we struck.

Mr. Woodburn: That is so. The rumours were not true in that case but there was an allegation that we could launch only 18-inch torpedoes and that the Japanese could launch 21-inch torpedoes. Some Members of this House who are specialists in that line raised a complaint and it was promised that production would meet that point.
Another point is that out aircraft must be dispersed over the earth, whereas German aircraft have the advantage of concentration. Statements have been made in the Press about the ability of German aircraft to move from one place to another. It struck me that immediately the great air battles over this country ceased, the air battles over Crete started. In other words, Germany has never seemed able to fight en masse in more than one theatre at any time. There has been a great diminution in the attacks on this country. London was the target for a concentrated attack for many nights—40 days and 40 nights, so to speak—an attack which failed, oWinģ to the bravery of our airmen and the stability of our population. Then the Germans started to attack smaller towns with even greater intensity, but these attacks lessened and the distance between them grew longer. That has gone on throughout the war. Therefore, it has seemed that, in spite of wise warnings given by the Minister and other responsible people, the German Air Force has never been as great as the Germans have said it was. It has steadily declined since the Battle of Britain and the victory of London's population. However wise these warnings may have been in order that people should not feel too hopeful about the future, the fact remains that the people are hopeful. They feel that Germany has already been defeated in the air and that her Air Force will decline until it ceases to exist. Although it is not the Minister's business to give that picture, it is, nevertheless, our business to keep it in view.
The Minister has given us to-day a picture of the very fine co-operation between the British and American Air Forces. I am quite satisfied that it is greater than any two nations in the world could have hoped to achieve, when the war broke out. It is a remarkable thing that our two nations have been able to build together in such a way. It seems to me that the Americans do not understand our attitude towards them. It is difficult for us to feel that they are not part of ourselves, and we do not look upon them as foreigners or members of any other nation. They may feel a little hurt about that, but I can assure them that it is only because of the friendliest of feelings we entertain for them. We feel they are "our ain folk," a feeling which makes for a great contribution to the possibility of this kind of co-operation. The greatest tribute that can be paid to this co-operation is that Air Marshal Tedder could be appointed to be Deputy Commander of the Allied Forces in this country and that the great silent Service, the Navy, has not made even a squeak about it. I am sure that everybody, in the past, would have expected almost rebellion in this House at the idea that anybody could have been put in command of combined Forces except an Admiral of the Fleet.
A great deal has been said about our bombing campaign and I think that the point of view of an outsider in these matters would not be out of place. I think it is doing a great disservice to our Air Force, to those in command, to the Minister and to the people of this country to suggest that we are bombing anybody for the sake of bombing. I am sure that that is not true. I think it is a wrong impression to give to our men in the Air Force that it could even possibly be true. I think the Minister's precise description of what has been accomplished by the bombing of Germany shows that it has been strategic bombing, and not bombing merely for the sake of destroying individuals.
There is another aspect of this matter which is worthy of consideration. I do not consider that we are making war at all. We and the rest of the civilised world are resisting and destroying the war-makers; we are preventing them from making war. Therefore, our bombing is a hygienic and sanitary operation and is not a military operation in the aggressive

sense at all. While I feel sympathy with anyone who is within range of falling bombs, we must realise that there is no doubt that the German population are still, in the main, behind Hitler and the German Generals. Until that state of affairs ceases to exist, they must accept some responsibility for war making. I can feel sympathy even for rats that are being destroyed, but when you realise that they may infect children with disease and bring disaster to the community you have to overcome your sympathy for the rats and destroy them. That applies to nations that are running riot in the world and destroying all that mankind has ever stood for. I am reminded of the story of the old lady who felt so sorry for a caged tiger that she let him out. That was misplaced sympathy and sympathy for Germany to-day is misplaced sympathy, Those who express it only do so because of the relative safety of this country. If we accept the point of view of those who advocate non-resistance, then we must wait until the bombs fall on our children before we help them. It is difficult logically to maintain that view if, at the same time, our young men are willing to risk their lives to prevent the enemy's bombs falling on us.
It is even better if the enemy's bombing planes do not reach this country, and better still if they are never manufactured. If our bombing force goes to Germany and destroys the nests from which these destructive insects come, that is of much more importance, and is much more desirable, than waiting until the bombs drop before we help our people. There is no logical difference between rescuing a child from the gutter after it has been bombed, and destroying the nests from which the bombers come. I was glad to hear the Minister describe in detail the destruction of German factories. It would be a waste of time to bomb civilian populations merely for the sake of morale. From my own experience and knowledge of production I know that a lucky hit can do an enormous amount of damage. Once a lucky German bomb struck a factory in England and held up production lines in Scotland for many months. That bomb happened to hit a vital spot and held up production until the factory was reconstructed. A bomb which hits a water main or an electricity works can do so much more damage to the war effort of


Germany than dropping a bomb on the civil population.
I learned with interest of the specific nature of the bombing which is bringing about the destruction of Germany's war effort. If you stop production in Germany, you will render her impotent when our men land on her own or German-occupied territory. Germany started this war to destroy the world. Our men are being asked to prepare themselves for a great invasion of the Continent, and it would be criminal if the Government did not take every step to destroy the potency of Germany before that event takes place. The more you can soften Germany for that invasion, the more grateful will be our Forces and our people generally. Those who are preparing for that great effort will be greatly heartened by the statement which the Minister has made to-day, and I can only wish his efforts greater success between now and the time when the Second Front opens.
I wish, however, that the Minister had said a little more about the work of the Air Forces in the Pacific. He dealt mainly with the Royal Air Force and paid tribute to the American Air Forces in this country but what has been happening in the Pacific has also been most remarkable. In recent months the Americans have popped over the Pacific, from island to island, advancing towards what I hope will now be the "Land of the Setting Sun." Every day they are getting nearer to the shores of Japan itself. Two or three months ago, I am sure that nobody would have thought it possible for America, to have made such progress as has been reported in her recent advances from island to island in the Pacific. With the growth of the land Forces in India, it must seem to the people of China that help is coming to her. From the point of view of stimulating China's morale, it must be a hopeful thing.
The Minister mentioned the production side of our air effort, a side about which I have some knowledge and which I have seen developing in the last four years. We must all pay tribute to those men in the Government and in industry who, between the two wars, were fully alive to the necessity for developing our aircraft. These men have, I agree, been all too few, but tribute must be paid to them,

because had they not pursued their policy, we would have been in a very sorry plight to-day. The efforts made since the war have been tremendous. Undoubtedly, the shadow factories built before the war have played their part, but during the last four-and-a-half years this country has seen almost an industrial revolution in the transition from other kinds of production to aircraft production. A remarkable feature is the way in which the number of man-hours required to produce a bomber or fighter aircraft has been steadily decreased. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, when he replies to the Debate, can give the proportion of man-hours in that respect. If he can say that we have been able to produce three bombers where we once were able to produce only one it will give some idea of the development of training in our factories, and especially of the way in which our girls and women have adapted themselves to this kind of war production.
Tribute must be paid to the people who have accomplished that. I have seen a factory myself where people who had not previously known anything about the work were taught. The man who managed it came from another industry. He started a school of girls, who passed through all the stages of learning the technique of the trade, and learned to measure and how to use instruments. They started on little jobs and in a few weeks passed on to first-class production. The manager paid a remarkable tribute to these girls. He said it would not have been possible for them to do this unless they had had the education available in the last few years. He had 50 secondary-school girls as a nucleus, and they brought their chums in later. Victory will be due in no small measure to the educational system which we have developed, and I hope that will be an encouragement to the President of the Board of Education to see that that system is further improved in the future.
I should like to ask the Minister whether we are thinking ahead and looking to the future. I know that the immediate task is a serious and a difficult one, but the war will end one of these days. Just as in peace affairs, we must be planning for the future, so, in air affairs there must be some thought of what is to happen to the wonderful machines that we have produced. Are they all to be scrapped, as


happened after the last war? I should like to think that war was going to disappear and that an air force would be unnecessary in that sense, but I see no hope of that in the immediate future. Until such time as we get some world air force, able to guarantee security to everyone, in my view it is clear that we shall have to maintain an air force capable of safeguarding us.
I can see considerable objections to a mass air force on the present basis, but that may not be necessary. Quality is of tremendous importance and the nucleus is the thing that must be safeguarded. But that nucleus must not be static. It another war should take place, which God forbid, I hope we shall not try to fight it with the weapons that have been developed in this war. There must be continual progress in research and in the development of aircraft. That is valuable for peace purposes as well. Whatever part of the air force is dispersed, I hope that the great research organisation that has been set up will not be and that a great deal of attention will be given to the building up of this great new element of transit. It will be a tragedy if this is scattered over all the shipping companies, and odds and ends of the country, everyone running his own little research department and building up little bits here and there. It must be the business of the nation to see that the best brains that we have in this department are encouraged and are never starved of resources.
Then there is the question of youth. I understand that the Navy offers a career to youth almost from the age of 12. Nothing has appealed to youth however like the Air Force. It seems to have gripped their minds. Have any plans been made to provide careers, after the war, for young fellows who wish to take up aviation? Is there to be an opportunity for youth and an elimination of class distinctions? Will all the youth of the country have an equal chance in qualifying? Some system of that kind ought to be devised in the very early days of post-war planning. May I quote from "Victory through Air Power"? The writer said:
British ascendancy has been challenged again and again throughout history by other countries. Always it has emerged victorious, but to-day's challenge is more difficult and more serious, because it is bound up with a revolution in war-making. To-day's test comes in a new medium, where Britain has still to prove herself master.

I think in some spheres, as far as one can judge as an outside observer, Britain has proved herself master of this element and the adventurous spirit of our youth has proved that she can utilise this instrument. I hope that in the future it may be possible to use it mainly for purposes of peace. To whatever purposes it may be directed, I hope an opportunity will be provided for this country to develop its great air-mindedness in the way in which it can make its greatest contribution to the well-being of the world.

Winģ Commander Robinson: I feel sure the House will be grateful to the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) for expressing sympathy with those who have been killed in the recent attacks on London. At the same time, he indicated that there was some unspecified body of people who failed to take the matter seriously. They are not to be found among the ranks of the night fighter pilots, who go up to challenge the enemy every night, nor among the antiaircraft gunners, who are greeting the raiders with the greatest flak barrage that we have ever known in this country. It was good to hear the Secretary of State report on what has been a year of uninterrupted progress for the Royal Air Force. I feel that the courage and initiative of our air crews will go down in the nation's history. Indeed, they are a real inspiration to those who are privileged in some small way to help them on the ground, and an inspiration to all the free peoples of the world.
The hon. Member raised the question of our bombing policy. During the past month or two there has been a certain amount of ill-informed criticism both in this House and in another place. Some of it has come from people like the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who appears to misunderstand what modern war is. They remember the good old days when wars were fought by professional armies and the rest of the world watched the spectacle. Those days have gone. The Germans showed that in the last war, and they brought the lesson home again to us in 1930 and 1940. Their barbarous attacks on civilians ceased only when they lost the means to press them home, and our experience has shown us that immediately they have power to resume those attacks, it is up to us to go out and destroy their produc-


tion, which is the source of power, before they have the opportunity of striking again.
There are other people who criticise our bombing policy. I think we who know something about this work should come here and make it clear that Allied bombing has nothing at all to do with revenge. It is entirely governed by strategic military necessity. No crew has ever been briefed to destroy a German target which has no industrial or military significance. Any suggestion to the contrary is the foulest and most unfair criticism of a fine body of men who are prepared to sacrifice their lives in order to destroy the German war machine and preserve the freedom of our country and liberate the oppressed peoples of Europe. The cities on the Continent that we have attacked have been vital centres of military production or transportation. We are going out to attack the enemy's sinews of war. We are plugging their producing capacity. We can hit it in more ways than one. The primary target is the factory itself, and a vast number of factories have been destroyed. Their iron and steel, rubber, ball Bearinģs, chemical works, production of ships, submarines and tanks have all suffered alike. But we hit it in another way too, because weapon-producing capacity must in the long run depend upon industrial man-power.
An eminent writer on air affairs, Peter Masefield, made an exhaustive analysis shoWinģ how millions of man-hours were lost to German industry through the attacks of Bomber Command. An attack on an industrial area inevitably destroys quite a large number of workers' houses. So long as the worker in Germany, or anywhere else, is without a home, he is an absentee from his work. He does not go back until some satisfactory accommodation has been found for him and his family, so that a great deal of production is lost. Still more is lost when they have to take workers away from the factories themselves in order to re-house those who have lost their homes. In the same way damage to power, light and communications is causing endless delay and loss of production. German industry must be bombed until productive capacity falls far behind the needs of the German forces. While we are destroying their weapon-producing capacity, the tremendous

weight and concentration of our attacks, and the regularity with which they are delivered, must be steadily undermining their morale. We know from our experience that morale does not break very easily and when a nation is held down by the ruthless discipline of the Gestapo a break-down of morale may be held up for a time but it may well be that before long the weigh: of our attacks will become so great that the fear of the bomb may exceed their fear of the Gestapo. It is only when that stage is reached that we can expect the breakdown of the German home front.
It is quite clear that the strategic offensive would never be called off until final victory is won, but I am little concerned about the possibility of a demand for the postponement of the strategic offensive for other war purposes. I am referring to the possibility, in case of an invasion or a bridgehead, of a ground or tactical commander wanting to use the strategic air forces for the tactical support of the armies in the field. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary could say who will be the man who has the final decision when such a request is made. It would be good to have an assurance that a request of that nature would only be met in cases of absolute necessity. I believe that tactical targets such as enemy concentrations or supplies on a beach-head should be destroyed by the Army with its artillery. We have provided a tactical air force to assist it with that work, and, if necessary, the Army could call on the Navy for bombardment from off the shore. I want to emphasise that ability to wage strategic air war is still important even during a time of invasion, and it is especially true now because so many of those who are directing the strategic air war believe that we are on the verge of success. If any diversion is allowed for tactical purposes, it will give the Germans a chance to recover from the cumulative effects of our offensive just when success lies within our grasp.
It should never be forgotten that the strategic air forces are the only ones which can wage a heavy and concentrated attack deep into the heart of the enemy's territory. What can be done may well be judged from the achievements of the strategic air forces during the last two months in their attacks on the German aircraft industry. Figures issued on Sunday showed that the Hun has lost no


less than 80 per cent. of his productive capacity of twin-engine fighters, 25 per cent. of heavy bomber capacity, 60 per cent. of his transport plane output and single-engine types, and in addition many hundreds of German planes have been shot down. I believe that an attack of this nature is really a major contribution to winning the war. In the case of the aircraft factories, the credit goes mainly to the American strategic air force in Europe which has made these factories their target. Such an attack should be continued without any respite for our enemy. Not only must the factories be destroyed, but they must remain destroyed, and that means that some of them may have to be visited time and time again. We must give the Hun no chance of rebuilding his factories or for recuperation. As we continue to attack vital strategic targets of this nature during the next two months or so, the Hun must come up to meet us in the air. He will have to oppose us, and in doing so he will use up his most vital capital resources, his irreplaceable reserves of aircraft. Eventually, when this is done and the Hun has very few fighter aircraft available, the whole of his industry will be at the mercy of our strategic air forces. It is better that they should stay on this work than be diverted to do the work of tactical forces or of artillery on a bridge-head. The situation is very much like that to which the Secretary of State referred when dealing with the enemy's attacks on this country. He said that the best way to deal with it was to go right out to the enemy's heart and hit him there.
Early in his speech the Secretary of State referred to some of the work which was done on the medical side of the Royal Air Force. I would like to ask what steps we are taking to develop a policy of the air evacuation of the wounded. Here our American friends have done a really outstanding job, and I would like to hear the Under-Secretary of State say that we are pursuing the matter with equal diligence. Apart from the provision of ambulance planes, it is now possible to modify freighter and transport aircraft so that, after they have taken their loads forward to the combat area, they can be used for bringing the wounded back from the front. Our American friends have done this with outstanding success, especially in the African and Italian campaigns, where over 58,000 casualties were evacu-

ated in this way. They did an even bigger job in the Pacific. I believe in the policy of air evacuation because it must improve the efficiency of the forward units by rapidly relieving them of their non-effectives; and it has the strategic advantage of reducing the large quantities of medical supplies and equipment which would otherwise be needed for them. The use of a comparatively small number of returned aircraft transport can avoid the need of train loads of equipment and tons of supplies which would otherwise have to be sent up to the forward medical units in the field.
Apart from that, it has now been abundantly proved that speed in returning casualties to well-established hospitals back at the base, where the best medical equipment and professional care are available, and where supplies are to be found in greater abundance, has done a great deal to bring about a reduction in the number of fatal casualties. It has saved many from permanent disability, and by early treatment in quiet surroundings many men have been able to avoid the necessity for a prolonged period of convalescence. It is good, too, for the comfort of the patients, because there is nothing worse than for a wounded man to have to do a long journey over bumpy roads. If they can be given the ease, the smoothness and the shortness of an air passage it will give them a greater chance of recovery. I commend the idea, too, for this one reason—that this swift treatment must do a great deal to improve the morale of the men who are doing the fighting. The Americans have done a good job in the Pacific, in Africa and in Italy. A few days ago they announced that their 9th Air Force in this country is prepared to do the same thing in the coming invasion. Are we ourselves equally prepared to look after our own men in the same manner?
I have mentioned some of the achievements of our American Allies. This matter was referred to by the hon. Member for East Stirling. These achievements serve to stress the fact that we now have two air forces working together in close partnership with a common aim. It has been my privilege to see this partnership grow from its beginning. I served with the 1st Eagle Squadron in the days when the first American volunteer fighter pilots came to this country to give battle to our


common enemy. When the United States came into the war, I was transferred to the headquarters of the 8th American Air Force. They are under the very able leadership of Lieut.-General Eaker. I saw that force grow into the great offensive fighting power which it is to-day. I want to emphasise that in the air and on the ground the British and the Americans co-operated freely and easily and there grew up a mutual respect and understanding the one for the other. The American leader in the air in this country is Lieut.-General Spaatz, who commands the whole of the United States strategic air force in Europe, and under him that same spirit of co-operation exists. It has been developed, and now the Royal Air Force has an almost equal partner to work with.
There is a great deal of co-operation. Indeed, the co-operation and planning have shown themselves well in the brilliant air battles which have taken place during the past few weeks. We have seen our American Allies attack the targets by day, and we have seen the British come back again and finish the job at night, and the attacks have been continued until such time as a vital enemy target has been obliterated. The co-operation which was shown by our planning staffs in the Schweinfurt and other raids are going a long way to assure our common success. A common plan, mutual respect and admiration between those who carry it out, can only be for the good of both of us. It will be a much better world if this understanding between our air forces can be continued after the war so that it permeates the whole of Anglo-American relationship in the years to come.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: I am sure that all Members of the House will congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Winģ-Commander Robinson) on his very interesting speech. His words, coming from a serving officer, carry great weight. We were much interested to hear what he said about the American Air Force and the part he has played in building it up in this country. I hope that he will be long in the House to give us of his wisdom on air matters. The Secretary of State made a clear statement on our air position in the fourth year of the war, and

I think that it was the best speech he has made in this House. I was glad as an old submarine officer to hear the tribute he paid to Coastal Command. They have done wonderful work in helping the surface vessels, pilots of the Fleet Air Arm and men of the Mercantile Marine in combating the U-boat menace in the Atlantic.
One has to be a sailor to understand what it means when these gallant pilots fly over great stretches of the ocean where they cannot see very much. They have made many great sacrifices for this country, and they have the satisfaction of knoWinģ that they, with the surface vessels and pilots of the Fleet Air Arm, have helped the convoys to reach this country. These convoys have brought not only munitions of war, but many other commodities, including the oranges and lemons that we have had lately and that we have not seen for a long time. Also we have the men of the Mercantile Marine to thank for bringing them to us. The Secretary of State talked about accidents. I was glad to hear of all the efforts that have been made in the Royal Air Force to prevent accidents because this was one of the things to which we paid great attention in the Royal Naval Air Service. Our accidents in those days were much less than in the Royal Flying Corps.
The question of bombing has been brought up in several speeches and in two Debates in another place and there have been many letters in the Press in connection with this subject. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Griģģ), in one of the best speeches he has ever made in the House, dipped into the past. In order to see the whole picture of bombing one must also look into the past. In 1899, the first Hague Peace Conference was convened, and one of the Clauses that was ratified was that projectiles dropped from balloons should not be allowed for five years. It was ratified by all the great Powers. Just before the last war the Germans had many passenger Zeppelins. I flew in one for five hours over Hamburg, the Bay of Lubeck and up the Elbe. Those passenger ships were turned over to military use just before the last war. When the war broke out, or shortly afterwards, the Zeppelins bombed London and some of our other cities. They dropped incendiary and ex-


plosive bombs and they were a formidable enemy to attack. The Royal Flying Corps at that time could not take any extra tasks because they were engaged in working with the Expeditionary Force.
The then First Lord of the Admiralty (the present Prime Minister) gave instructions that the Royal Naval Air Service was to attack the Zeppelins. We did so. We dropped bombs on sheds at Dusseldorf and destroyed a Zeppelin. We got one Zeppelin at Fredrickshaven and another one at Evre, while the late Sub-Lieutenant Warneford, V.C., bombed one over Ghent. We got one over Dover and another one in the Thames Estuary. In all, the Royal Naval Air Service destroyed about nine Zeppelins. The Royal Flying Corps came into it towards the end of the war, and they destroyed seven Zeppelins. When the two Forces combined they destroyed five Zeppelins. When we dropped the bombs on the Zeppelin sheds and bombed the Zeppelins in the air, as well as bombing the submarine shelters at Zeebrugge and the nearby canals, we probably struck some civilians. We had a few complaints—I do not know whether they were genuine—that some women and children were killed in Belgium. It was almost impossible to say that every bomb you dropped would strike a military objective. We were faced with the question whether we should go on with the bombing of Zeppelin sheds and stand the chance of killing a few women and children, or should stop. We had to face the question. The Zeppelins killed some 500 people in London in the 12 raids they did here, and about 1,300 were wounded. Something like 1,400 were killed in the whole of Great Britain by Zeppelin and aeroplane attack in the last war. We decided to continue the bombing and we could not help a few civilians being killed. Every airman has humane instincts, and we were very distressed when we learned that any civilian was killed.
In this war, Germany started by bombing Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry and so on, and we were forced to bomb the factories that produced munitions of war in Germany. There is no doubt that the production of those factories has been very much reduced by the great work of Bomber Command. Some people say that Berlin should not have been bombed, but I do not know whether

the people who have criticised like that have ever visited Berlin. In the course of my duties I was sent by the Admiralty to Berlin to purchase the biggest article any Britisher has ever bought in Germany, and that was a 350,000 cubic foot hydrogen gas capacity airship of the "Parseval" type. I was in Berlin to carry on negotiations for the purchase of that ship and to put her through her trials at Bitterfeldt. There they had airship sheds, which they have no doubt now turned over to aeroplane work. Also they had chemical works nearby. There was a great aerodrome just outside Berlin, at Johanistal, where they had two sheds, one to take two Zeppelins and another to take one Zeppelin. There were many other sheds for aeroplanes. No doubt many of those are now turned over to the use of aeroplanes and the production of aeroplanes. Round Berlin there are hundreds of factories. I submit that it is a right policy for Bomber Command to carry out as many attacks as they can on those factories in Berlin, and so reduce their output.
The Secretary of State referred to what Bomber Command has done. I hope that he will get his whole force of bombers concentrated upon attacking every factory that can produce any article connected with aircraft throughout Germany, because it is the only way that we can save life when we come to send our invasion forces to Europe. Thousands of men, if not a million men, might be saved by reducing the air production of Germany. Every particle of the energy of Bomber Command should not be dissipated by side shows, but should go to knocking out every possible factory or any place where aeroplanes or component parts connected with aeroplanes are produced. I hope that that great man, Chief Air-Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, will not have any of his Bomber Command taken from him for other work. He has a great responsibility, and there is no doubt that what he has done up to the present has been the means of saving a tremendous number of lives. In my opinion he is one of the greatest airmen of this war and believes the bomb is the master weapon.
We have heard the criticism that aeroplanes should not attack ancient buildings and so on. I have been privileged to see some of the greatest antique buildings of


the world, from Assouan, Baalbec, Damascus, the great Acropolis at Athens, to Timgad, the Roman ruins in Northern Africa. I have seen the ancient buildings at Pompeii, Rome and elsewhere in Italy. If I were in command of any unit of the Air Force, and I knew that Germans were firing at our troops under the protection of one of these ancient buildings, I should give orders at once that that ancient building should be bombed and reduced to rubble. I have as much love far the antique as anybody, but it is not right that our men should be mown down by Germans under the protection of a monastery, as in the case in Italy the other day. The women of England would prefer to see their sons come home to the preservation of any ancient building in the world.
Passing from bombing, the Secretary of State for Air gave us a few remarks on civil aviation. I want to ask him whether he will consult with the Postmaster-General to have another air mail panel set up. He had an air mail panel consisting of two Members of this House, of whom I was one, and members of the General Post Office service. We went into the whole question of air mail being sent all over the Empire, to Europe and to distant parts of the world, and we were able to send our mails without surcharge to all parts of the Empire. A little additional charge was made on the mails going to Europe. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Postmaster-General now, with a view to getting some of the younger airmen placed on to the air mail panel to go into the whole question of this transport of air mail after the war. There must be a number of younger airmen who have to stand off flying and who could do this work, not only in regard to the Empire but to different parts of the world when this war ceases.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question. We have read a good deal in the Press about jet propulsion for aircraft. I take it that the jet propulsion engine is about as far advanced as the engines we used in the aeroplanes of the last war. No doubt it is in its infancy. Under this system, you save the weight of the propeller and the shafting and so on, but you have to carry a large amount of additional fuel. Has the Minister in his research department a really skilled engineer, like Sir Roy Fedden, who could look into the whole question of developing

this jet propulsion engine? The jet propulsion system may help us enormously in air development after the war. I do not expect the Under-Secretary to answer that question right away, but he might answer it when we have a Debate on civil aviation on the Report stage. Perhaps he can give us an idea of what is being done about the jet propulsion engines and their development.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: While the present policy of the Air Ministry is, no doubt, popular in this country, there have been times when the policy followed by the Ministry was not altogether accepted. Probably, as the war developed and the aeroplane took a larger part in every way and in every field in the war, the public began to recognise that on many of the long-range decisions taken in the past, the air staff of the Air Ministry had decided very wisely. There was a time when the absence of dive bombers worried the public very much. I do not want to revive that controversy. In this country, we have seemed to develop the use of aeroplanes in our own way. We have not copied or followed the Germans to any appreciable extent, and the policy is becoming more and more justified by the results, which are becoming more clearly apparent than they were when the bombing policy was under criticism.
Perhaps it was that the daily communiqués of the Air Ministry, telling very similar stories almost every day, began to create doubt in the public mind as to whether the effect of bombing was so very important, or perhaps a sort of boredom arose in regard to the news. It may also be that we over-estimated at one time the value of our earlier bombing. I do not think the public feel that now. They recognise the very great part that strategic bombing is taking in the war. I was very glad that the Air Minister confined his review of the value of bombing to the actual physical destruction of factories and military objectives. The public, I think, are apt to speculate on what the effect on morale of bombing will be. It certainly has an effect but it seems to me that it is an uncertain effect and that it would be unwise to draw conclusions about the breaking of morale or to lay much store on that. The value of bombing, it seems to me, is in the hard physical facts of the destruction of the war poten-


tial of the enemy's war industries and the enemy's capacity to make war, and one must not use extraneous arguments such as that the Germans may revolt as a result, or become listless. That may happen, it may not; bombing might have just the opposite effect. In any case, the real value of bombing is the destruction of the capacity of Germany to make war.
In every field of the war, aircraft are playing a greater part. We are a conservative people so far as the Services are concerned, and I think that in many branches of the war the Air Force has had its way to make. I do not want to raise a controversy but I believe that the part which the aircraft of Coastal Command play in the Battle of the Atlantic is recognised more to-day than it was in the early days of the war. I would like to add my word of tribute to the part which has been played in that long and at one time rather desperate battle by the pilots and personnel of Coastal Command.
As well as being a sea Power, we have to learn to be an air Power in the future. I am one of those who think it important to lay emphasis on that. Unless we can keep our position in the air in the future, other forms of defence cannot now give us the security which they did in the past. The Prime Minister, last week, gave the figures about the part that the British Air Forces had played in the war. I would ask whether it is not very difficult accurately to sum up the part which the British effort has played, because it seems to me that in the Air Force the effort has been so integrated with that of our Allies and the Dominions, that it is difficult to distinguish between their part and the part that we in these Islands have played in the general effort. For instance, it used to be, and I think it still is the case, that there were probably as many Dominion personnel in the Royal Air Force as in Dominion squadrons. Perhaps that is not quite the case now, but with regard to both Allied personnel and Dominion personnel, one of the good things about the Air Force is that they are mixed so freely in all the squadrons, and that it has been found that our Allies from Europe, and our Dominion personnel, and other British subjects, can all work so successfully together in mixed squadrons.
It seems to me that our war effort, too, has been integrated very successfully with

that of America. Again, it is difficult to draw distinctions because types of aeroplanes have been manufactured for us by the States and flown by our personnel. There, again, the war effort has been successfully mixed up in a way which makes it very difficult to say precisely which is our part in the war effort, and which is the part of other people. In passing, I would like to add my voice to that of the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) in asking the Under-Secretary whether he can tell us more about the fascinating subject of jet propulsion. There is another type of aeroplane which has been mentioned in the Press lately; that is the helicopter. I wonder if the Under-Secretary can tell us something about its possible use for evacuating wounded and for similar purposes?
Finally, on the subject of the integration of our war effort, may I say it is integrated in another way, that is, in training? The Under-Secretary has had a special responsibility for developing the tremendous training scheme in Canada which, I understand, is continually working ever more smoothly and more successfully. I believe that the Air Minister for Canada recently made a statement on the way it has been developing, and the Under-Secretary has been conferring again over there recently. No doubt he can give us more information about the way in which that joint enterprise between ourselves and Canada and the Americans is working.
Lastly, could we hear a little more on how our defences are working during this second blitz? One of the features of raids now is the great number of people who stand to watch what goes on. I do not know whether all should do so, but some who are fire-watching have a right and duty to do so. Other people do go to their windows—it is perhaps a very foolish thing to do—to watch the tremendous firework display. They see planes caught in the searchlights, and often nothing seems to happen. Sometimes, if you are very lucky, quite exciting things happen. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can tell us more about how the guns, searchlights and night fighters are co-ordinated. That is not just curiosity. I think the people who are suffering the raids would put up with them all the better if they knew as much


as can be told without giving away secrets which they ought not to know. I would ask one last question. There are criticisms at times as to the use of personnel in all the Services. Could the Under-Secretary tell us something more about the substition of W.A.A.F. personnel for men in technical trades in the Air Force?

Major Markham: On the occasion of these Debates I believe it is the practice to criticise the Ministry. I feel very much in the opposite mood, for instead of wishing to criticise, I would rather wish to praise. It has been my experience as an Army officer, in the constant contacts one has had with the Air Force, that they are a Force of remarkable and consistent efficiency, and from whatever angle one has had contacts with them this efficiency has been most marked. They are also a most co-operative Force, and relations with the Army as far as my experience goes have been uniformly good. I should like to pay my tribute coming, as I might say, from the junior ranks of the Army, to the sister Force.
I am, however, concerned with a matter about which there is at the moment a great deal of talking, about which, indeed, there is always a great deal of talking and very little action—the weather. It was Mark Twain, I think, who said that everybody grumbles about the weather, but nobody does anything about it, but he evidently did not know that the Secretary of State for Air is the one Minister in this country responsible for our weather. He not only observes it and registers it, and produces a most astonishing series of scientific publications about it, but, at the moment, he is responsible, directly and personally, for worsening it. I hope to make this point clear before I conclude. May I explain about the observation and the registration of it? It has been obvious for years that the meteorological service of this country has been very considerably handicapped, and still is, by the shortage of trained staff.
I think the House will  that it takes four years to train  meteorology. Three years  and physics and a yea meteorology are needed be is even ready to begin 

meteorological office, or at any one of the Air Ministry stations which has a meteorological staff. It was evident before the war that we were very short, and the Under-Secretary will remember that I raised this question in the House not once but consistently, week after week, with a view to the meteorological part of his Ministry being adequately staffed. There has been an improvement but that improvement has not been sufficient, and my point is that we are to-day faced with this problem, that contrasted with other great Powers, our meteorological service in this country has a lower potential than any of them.
I can speak with some first-hand knowledge of America. I had the privilege of being there a few months ago. As far as I can judge, they have in training between 3,000 and 4,000 young men as meteorologists. These young men are doing a four years' course: three years of mathematics and physics and one year in meteorology. I think it would be difficult to claim that these young men are all designed for war jobs, because in the normal run of things the war will be over, at any rate before the last batches become available. It means that America has in in view that at least 4,000 skilled, trained meteorologists will be required in peace time. What for? Immediately one's mind leaps to the question of civil aviation. If it is to expand as the Americans think, there will obviously be a great demand for trained meteorologists, not only in the United States itself but in every quarter of the world where American air lines will run. If that argument is true of the United States and they are training between 3,000 and 4,000 meteorologists here and now under Army Air auspices it means that we should have at least similar numbers in training.
My information is not only that our number in training is much less but that the course of training is much less thorough. Where the American course is four years before the man takes up a meteorological appointment our training course lasts nine or ten months only—a very intensive course—I hope I am wrong in this is and that the Under-Secretary will  that there is a much more thorough grounding for meteorologists, but it is my opinion that we have too few really well d meteorologists. My impression is ine or ten months intensive training,


folloWinģ a preliminary knowledge of mathematics gained at a secondary school, is considered an appropriate period of instruction for young meteorologists in this country contrasted with the four years required in the United States.
But it is not only for civil air lines that meteorologists are required. America realises that the whole field of public health depends for one of its basic essentials on the purity of the air. There was a time when it was universally accepted in this country that sewage should be pumped into rivers and that Dame Nature would do the rest. That has been remedied, but this country still believes that other impurities, such as smoke and grit, may be pumped into the air unceasingly, and Nature will automatically clean the air. How untrue this theory has become may be judged by the fact that fog banks descend for days on end over cities, such as Glasgow and London. This combination of smoke and fog materially affects the public health, but it is nobody's job to do anything about it. By contrast, in every American city there is a staff of trained meteorologists whose task is not only to observe and register the public air, but to see that the public air is kept clean, both by industrial and by private users.
One of the astonishing things in America is the way the public health figures have been improved in Chicago, New York and the other cities as a result. The Air Ministry should not look upon meteorology simply as a science which produces forecasts for the use of aviators. It should regard itself as being charged with the great and almost sacred task of keeping the air of this country pure. To show what a loss we suffer from this pollution of the air, one has only to refer to the recent reports of the Committee on Atmospheric Pollution, which show that Glasgow loses 50 per cent. of its sunshine from smoke pollution and over 50 per cent. of its ultraviolet radiation. It can be shown that Victoria Street, Westminster, just outside here, loses over 60 per cent. of ultra-violet radiation every year. If that is true of Glasgow and of London, about which there has been detailed analysis, what must be the case of Stoke, Liverpool, Manchester, and, as an hon. Member says, Wigan, which have comparable conditions of smoke and fog throughout the winter? I suggest that we are losing in this country one of the greatest assets God has given

us—that is, unpolluted sunshine—because no Minister has taken the responsibility of keeping our air clean, and I suggest that the Secretary of State for Air should extend his functions and become the guardian of the air, and give us back that sunshine which since the industrial revolution we have lost. This pollution has been greatly increased recently by the action of the Ministry in encouraging smoke production, rather than its abatement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is really in Order. This has nothing to do with the Vote of the Ministry.

Major Markham: I will, of course, bow to your Ruling, Sir, but might I suggest, as a practical step that the right hon. Gentleman should improve the publications of the meteorological side of his Ministry? For a great number of years there has not been an analysis of the statistics which observers gather with such accuracy, such as could be understood by the man in the street. It is high time that the meteorological service endeavoured to attract the attention of the public to this question of the weather at large. In particular, I beg him to see that we do not get again those scandals—I use the word advisedly—of untrue observations from certain parts of the British Isles. A few years ago one of our leading London newspapers ran what it called a "sunshine league." It published, day by day, an analysis of the amount of sunshine at holiday resorts in the previous 24 hours. I think it is beyond question that many of those coastal observers deliberately faked their figures to produce higher totals and thus attract more trippers to their towns. The Air Ministry should, in my opinion, have taken active steps to see that those observations were accurate. As far as I ant aware, no steps were taken. I suggest that the Minister, who is not only the Air Minister but the Minister for meteorology, should see that such records and observations are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Although I have been rebuked by Mr. Deputy Speaker for being slightly out of Order, I hope that the Air Minister will do his best to give us back again good clean air and such sunshine as England knew two centuries ago.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State fox Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The hon.


and gallant Member for South Nottingham (Major Markham) said that the Air Ministry should be the guardian of the public air. The whole purport of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, in submitting his Estimates to-day, was that the Air Ministry is the guardian of the public air over this country, endeavouring to defend us from the onslaughts of the enemy, and endeavouring to command the air over the enemy's soil. I could not entirely accept the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member as regards our meteorological service. Perhaps the House will allow me to deal with that question before I come to the speeches made by other hon. Members. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, on behalf of the Air Ministry, for the generous tribute he paid, as a member of a sister Service, to the Royal Air Force. I regret that his tribute was tempered by criticism of a branch of the Service, because I do not think that our meteorological results justify that criticism. If he had been fortunate enough, as I have on more than one occasion, to have the opportunity of going down to Bomber Command, or of seeing the flight plan made up for a trans-Atlantic flight from Newfoundland to Scotland, and if he had seen the confidence that the captains of the aircraft place in the meteorological forecast given them, on which they base the whole of their flight plans, I do not think he would have cast that aspersion of inefficiency on that service which has given such vital help in our bomber offensive.
It so happened that last week I flew across the Atlantic. We arrived in Scotland within two minutes of our flight plan, made out in Newfoundland. The captain of the aircraft told me that the forecast showed that after 2½ hours we should meet a front; then, after being at 17,000 ft. we should go down to 8,000 ft. Because of high pressure over England, we should have fine weather. His forecast was correct within two minutes. I do not think that that could have been done unless the captain had relied on the meteorological work at his disposal. I hope hon. Members will appreciate that we are working our meteorological service under very strict limitations in war-time, as regards use of radio for signalling information, as regards ability to make

reconnaissances over the North Sea in enemy areas and into areas of air where enemy aircraft are likely to be met, and, finally, as regards the limitation of manpower. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that we should publish our monthly weather reports. That criticism was on a level with some of the other criticisms he made. If he had gone into the matter further, he would have found that the continued suppression of some of our reports is not because the information might be of direct operational information to the enemy, but because we broadcast that information to His Majesty's ships and the Fighting Forces overseas, and if it were published it would help the enemy to break down our ciphers.

Mr. Montaģue: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say something about Polar organisation?

Captain Balfour: Not without notice, I am afraid. The Air Ministry are thinking of supplying a meteorological service which is best suited to the needs of war. It may be that when peace-time comes there will be changes. I am quite sure that those in charge of our meteorological efforts will read with interest and profit the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend, but at present I would only, first, refute the criticisms he makes of our meteorological staffs and work, and, secondly, pay tribute to those who use that service which they provide.

Major Markham: Is there no post-war planning on the part of that service?

Captain Balfour: There is a great deal of post-war planning, but there is also a great deal of war activity. I turn to the most interesting speech of the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), which my right hon. Friend and I welcomed. It is always the duty of the Under-Secretary who winds up the Debate to pick up the bits and pieces which are thrown around the Chamber, and to try to answer points to the satisfaction of hon. Members. The hon. Member for East Stirling asked what had happened to the dive-bombers: whether we had received our American deliveries? We have received our American deliveries; but practice of the art of air warfare has shown that fighter-bombers have proved much more successful than dive-bombers


for the function that a dive-bomber performs, and the House will be interested to know that the Germans are turning over, as regards both production and tactics, from the dive-bomber to the fighter-bomber, endeavouring to copy some of the methods we have developed. The hon. Member's second point was as regards attacks on battleships by torpedo aircraft. He asked whether we had progressed. My answer is: Yes, indeed we have. I cannot say more to-day, for obvious reasons of security, but the supply of German battleships is limited, and we find difficulty in obtaining an adequate supply of targets. No doubt, if an opportunity comes for those targets to be available, the hon. Member will see the progress which has been made in equipment and training.
The third point was about our dispersed air forces and Germany's concentrated air force. The hon Gentleman touched on a very vital point, because until the Mediterranean vas open, through the conquest of the North African coast, we had to send all our supplies, and the majority of our aircraft that could not do the journey to the Middle East by air, through the West African route. One used to fly from here to Lagos, and at the end of four or five days to be further from Cairo than when one started. The Germans were able to operate on internal lines of communication, to sWinģ the Luftwaffe from the Western front to the Italian front, and from the Italian front to the Russian front. We had to be able to withstand the maximum effort the Germans could impose on any particular front. That was not an easy task, but now the pressure is relieved, thanks to the freeing of the Mediterranean. I am glad the hon. Member mentioned that, because it reflects great credit on those who maintained our air power in the early Libyan and other North African campaigns.
The hon. Member, and also the hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool (Winģ-Commander Robinson) spoke of Anglo-United States co-operation. I am sure the House welcomes the tribute paid by my hon. and gallant Friend as a serving officer, who has first-hand knowledge of the close working of the two Forces. What he said is very true. One has only to go down to an air base to see that they are doing a fine job and are working very well together. I had an opportunity some time ago of attending a party which some

of our fighters were giving for the Fortress leaders of the formation which they had been escorting. Equally, the Americans have close and friendly liaison with those with whom they are working in the actual day-to-day combats. I think one could, broadly, say that the nearer you get to the fighting the less risk is there of any of those silly reasons for friction which sometimes do arise.
The hon. Gentleman paid a handsome tribute to those who kept the art of flying and the aircraft industry and research and development alive between 1918 and 1939. As he rightly said, if it had not been for those who devoted their lives, sometimes with profit and sometimes without, to aeronautical work of all kinds, this country would have been in a sorry way in 1939. I believe that love of the air was the compelling motive of the men who devoted most of their lives to that particular cause. The hon. Member for East Stirling also asked about the aircraft industry in the future, and painted a picture of the regrettable step which we should be taking, if we dissipated this wonderful industry, built up of workpeople, technicians and designers. I quite agree with him. Indeed, we are thinking of the future, and, after Germany has been defeated, we shall still, whatever form of world security organisation there may be, need a very large Air Force for a long time. We have policing work to do, the protection of lines of communication and transport work and the battle againsi Japan, and we have pledged ourselves to put the whole of our resources, enthusiasm and resolution into that fight, as we are doing to-day in the battle against Germany. No doubt, the Minister of Aircraft Production will read with agreement the view which the hon. Gentleman put forward of the need for continued research and development after Germany has been defeated.
Finally, the hon. Member asked what we were going to do after the war for youths who were keenly air-minded. The Secretary of State has made public declarations that the continuation of the Air Training Corps is part of our policy for the post-war Air Force. I can assure the hon. Member that, just as we have no class distinction now as to who shall fly aircraft—and one of the wonders of the provision of tens of thousands of air crews is that they come from every level of society, and from every section of the


community, and we never seem to run short of wonderful young boys of this sort—so we shall do our best to see that there is no class distinction afterwards.
The hon. and gallant Member for Blackpool asked a question about who has the final decision on a demand for full tactical support from heavy bombers by the supreme commander. It is not an easy question to answer and the House will excuse me if I leave it alone. If there ever is a serious dispute—this does not happen often, because they all take a wide view—the combined Chiefs of Staff would make recommendations to the Prime Minister and to President Roosevelt. That would be the ultimate, but the happy thing is that we never seem to have to reach the ultimate in our relations with Commanders-in-Chief of the various Forces. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter), who is heand by the House with so much respect, and, if I may say so, affection, and to whom we owe a great deal for his pioneering work, gave us a very interesting discourse, with which I agree, except on his point about the comparative rates of accidents in the old R.N.A.S. and R.F.C. in the pre-war years and in 1914–18. I did make my own contribution to the accidents by crashing a number of maohines myself in the last war, but in spite of that, I cannot possibly accept the view that the accident rate of the Royal Flying Corps was greater than that of the Royal Naval Air Force.

Sir M. Sueter: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman went into statistics of the Royal Flying Corps, naval and military Winģs, he would find that the Military Winģ had far more accidents than the Naval Winģ.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This controversy is not one that we can go into to-day and should not be pursued.

Captain Balfour: The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) referred to jet propulsion, and asked whether the research department had skilled engineers able to carry on the development of the jet propulsion engine. This matter of research and development does not come within the province of the Air Ministry, but within that of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, though I do not think I shall be trespassing on the

province of the Minister of Aircraft Production, if I give an assurance that active work is going on with jet propulsion and that the most skilled and the most knowledgeable scientists are carrying on that task. The hon. Member also asked about the helicopter. I am glad of that because, last week, I had the chance to fly in a helicopter, thanks to the courtesy of the United States Army authorities. I can assure the House that it is a gay experience. We took off backwards from the front of a shed and we had a conversation hovering 30 feet up—the pilot and I—and then went on backwards until clear of the shed, and then forwards to a safe landing on water. The pilot put it down so gently on the water that it would not have sunk a toy boat, and, on land, you could land it without breaking an egg. It is a most remarkable aircraft and we in this country are taking a great interest in its development. Beyond that I cannot go, but having been sceptical in the past, I can assure the House that I came back convinced that it has an enormous future. It is now more an engineering job, as opposed to a technical job requiring basic development.
The hon. Member also asked me how the guns, night fighters and searchlights are co-ordinated. I am afraid I cannot go into that in detail in this House, for reasons which I am sure he and other hon. Members will appreciate. Sufficient to say that all the operations are carried out according to co-ordinated plans, which are reviewed, and, if this co-ordination can be improved in any way, such improvements are put into force in a matter of hours. We try to keep up, day by day, our technique in combating the night fighter attacks on this country. Regarding the substitution of W.A.A.F. personnel for airmen, it is really remarkable the work that our women in the various Forces have done. To-day we have women substituting for airmen in 57 trades and in 25 various forms of duty carried out by officers. If one lands at an aerodrome not far from this House—an R.A.F. aerodrome—a beautiful young lady—they are mostly beautiful—will come along to fill your tank and service your aircraft, and, when you receive the form that your aircraft is serviceable, it will have been signed by a member of the W.A.A.F. Women are carrying out


piloting tasks in the Air Transport Auxiliary, and I should like to pay tribute, and the House would probably like to associate itself with that tribute, to the women of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
I have endeavoured to answer the questions put by hon. Members, and I would like to say, on behalf of the Secretary of State and myself, that to-day we must feel grateful for the reception which this House has given to the Estimates presented by my right hon. Friend. We are grateful for the recognition of the rightness of the air policy we are endeavouring to pursue, and the support given to that policy. Finally, we are grateful for the tributes paid to the work which is being done by our Dominion, Allied and Royal Air Force air crews. I know that those who read the Debate that has taken place to-day, will feel that their work has not gone unrecognised by Parliament.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Bowles: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, realising the important part that civil aviation can play in bringing the peoples of the world together and in promoting mutual understanding, urges that past-war plans shall not regard national facilities for this means of air transport as a bargaining point between the nations, but be based upon the need for full international co-operation.
I was very interested in the concluding remarks of the Under-Secretary. I was also a little interested when he told us about his experiences in the helicopter in which he took off and flew backwards. I hope that, in this matter of civil aviation, neither he nor the Minister will go backwards in any way. We have got to go forward with a realisation of how tremendously important this matter of civil aviation is. For the first 2½ hours of today's Debate we have been dealing with the Royal Air Force and military air power, and now I think it is appropriate to change over from the military side to the civil side. I think I might not do better than quote a statement made by Lord Baldwin, then Mr. Baldwin, at the time of the Disarmament Conference in November, 1932. He said this:
I am firmly convinced myself … that, if it were possible, the air forces ought all to be abolished, but, if they were, there would

still be civil aviation and in civil aviation there are potential bombers. … In my view, it is necessary for the nations of the world concerned … to devote the whole of their minds to this question of civil aviation to see if it is possible so to control civil aviation that such disarmament will be feasible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1932; cols. 635–6, Vol. 270.]
I propose to try and divide my speech into a review of past experiences of civil aviation in the world, but particularly in Europe, and then to give some estimate of what I believe, on very good advice, is likely to be the amount of traffic, passenger and freight, which one could reasonably expect will be carried by air in the post-war years, and then the solution of my party on this side of the House far dealing with this problem, namely, the complete internationalisation of civil aviation.
Anybody who has any experience of pre-war civil aviation will realise in the first place how very important were the effects of the International Air Convention of 1919, which provided for full and complete sovereignty of each State over the air space above its territory and territorial waters. It also gave the right to any State to decide—it was implicit in that declaration—whether any foreign aircraft were to be allowed to fly over its territory. They could also lay down, if they decided to allow any foreign aircraft to fly over, where and between which points on the coast or on the frontiers, as the case might be, foreign aircraft would be allowed to enter or to depart. It was also permitted that they could absolutely prohibit aircraft of another nation flying over various parts of their territory which they regarded as prohibited areas from a military point of view.
If one, therefore, examined the amount of flying which took place, in Europe in particular, before the war, one found that these aircraft divided up their flights and were very seldom able to fly straight between one capital and another, and, oWinģ to the bad and disjointed form of organisation, it was impossible to have really long night flights at all. The right hon. Gentleman, if he did not travel in military aircraft, would really and truly have been unable before the war to fly from London to Istanbul during the night oWinģ to the failure to develop beacon lights on routes and so on. The result was that business men and others who


desired to travel either had to travel by night by train and boat, or travel by day by air. That situation was the direct result of the International Air Convention of 1919, for nations were allowed to develop their own particular air transport companies, and generally, the position was a multi-coloured pattern over the general face of Europe. This position did not obtain in U.S.A.
It was admitted in 1935 that it would be possible to provide between any capitals in Central Europe—I am leaving out Moscow and possibly Turkey—a 12-hour postal service at the cost of an extra halfpenny, or, in other words, threepence instead of the foreign postage rate of 2½d. before the war. Nothing was ever done about this; there were too many people concerned. It followed the old cliché or adage that what was everybody's business was nobody's business. There is a point to be made. We rightly say the "United States of America," and the "un-united States of Europe." The air postal service, as far as the United States is concerned, started as long ago as 1918—immediately the late war was over. I would also remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, with me, on various occasions used to take some interest in civil aviation, that one found in various capitals of Europe no less than six operating companies. They had their inquiry and administrative officers. If you went to the Air France offices, for instance, and asked a question as to when the next Imperial Airways machine was departing, they would not tell you. It was not uncommon to find in these various capitals half a dozen of these inquiry offices, who would not give information as to what aircraft was operating, or the times of operation.
I would also draw the attention of the House to the result of all this management and disorganisation. In pre-war Europe the amount of traffic which was carried by air yearly amounted to 1,000th of the amount taken on the four mail railways of this country. It is worth while remembering what the taxpayers of Europe had to pay for this. It disclosed a very serious situation. M. Bouché, who was the French air expert at the League of Nations in 1935, said this—and this is the answer to people who believe that we are going back to the old pre-war civil aviation:

In Europe as a whole subsidies to air lines were so heavy that the taxpayers between them were having to pay nearly 2,000,000 French francs a day for European air lines. The total load carried in the whole of 1932 was only equivalent to the load carried each day of the year by three or four ten-ton trucks for a thousand kilometres. That is to say, from the north to the south of France, or from London to Berlin. After 15 years of organisation and technical progress air transport still required in 1932 a subsidy of 14½ francs per kilometre, while the receipts from customers per kilometre were 4·75 francs, each passenger obviously receiving on an average a contribution from the taxpayers of Europe amounting to many pounds for each air journey. Altogether we have a system which is far more in the nature of propaganda than of economic utility or the fulfilment of permanent needs—apart from the Paris-London service. The network is just as far away from independence, and the economic activity is no higher at the end of 1934 than it was two years earlier.
He went on to say that civil aviation in Europe was waiting for one inestimable gift, namely, the gift of collective organisation, and it never came. Even in the years 1933 and 1934, after the slump in 1931 and 1932, subsidies were reduced very little indeed, and even then, with that tremendous subvention by the tax payers of Europe, they were still needing the one thing which, as he points out, would be the most valuable gift—the adoption of collective action calculated on a European scale to meet European needs on strictly economic lines. There was no body to plan or control the network of Europe as a whole or to organise and finance the necessary services on a continental scale. There were no less than 50 air lines competing for this little bit of air traffic. The development of civil aviation was also very largely hindered oWinģ to the fact that manufacturers were concerned to pay some regard—and perhaps a fairly reasonable regard—to the military interests of the various countries in which the machines were made. It was also a good talking point for the manufacturer of aircraft to be able to say that his machine could easily be converted into a military machine. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or his right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would care to look at "Jane's All the World Aircraft" of 1932 onwards he would almost invariably find that the manufacturers drew special attention to the convertibility of their machines into military or civilian aircraft. These facts disclosed such a shocking


situation before the war that it would be lamentable if there were influences in this country, or on the Conservative side of this House, to try to compel us, or even to allow us, to go back to that kind of thing.
I find that people are exaggerating tremendously the real importance of civil aviation after the war. It is important that one should have some sense of perspective. So long as air travel remains so very dear it is obvious that it can attract only the real cream of the rail, road and shipping traffic. The cabin or first-class passengers of liners will be the only people who will be able to afford air transport. In spite of the enormous technical improvements, reducing passenger costs, but improving comfort, air travel can only be considered as a serious competitor to first-class travel on a luxury liner. Between 1932 and 1941 the number of transport planes in the United States of America fell from 564 to 450 because the average number of seats by then had gone up from 6.58 to 18. We are now designing planes to carry 100 passengers or more and, therefore, I ask that that point shall be taken into account.
The real bottleneck, as far as post-war civil aviation is concerned, is fuel. There cannot be an enormous development in passenger transport as long as the large plane of the type now being designed requires, for one mile of flight, at least 14 lbs. of fuel, costing, on the most conservative estimate, an average of 1/6d. I understand that the weight of a gallon of octane petrol is about seven lbs. That means that you require two gallons of petrol to fly one of these large transport planes for one mile. It is not only the question of cost with which I am concerned; to fly 3,000 miles across the Atlantic you would need to carry 20 tons of fuel. That is really and truly a most serious bottleneck and should be recognised by both right hon. Gentlemen who are talking—as did the Lord Privy Seal in another place—about what is really going to happen after the war as far as civil aviation is concerned. Major R. H. Thornton, who is known to my right hon. Friends, has calculated that giving the aeroplane the full benefit of the allowance for extra speed, it still takes 89 times as much fuel as a ship to do the same job.
From a most careful examination as to the number of aircraft required for trans- 
porting all the passengers who travelled before the war, either by air or by first or cabin-class steamers, between this country and points more than 1,500 miles away, taking into account all relevant factors, such as seasonal variations in traffic, serviceability of aircraft, utilisation of existing capacity, a certain amount of mail, etc., could be comfortably carried in less than 100 aircraft. This figure is low but the right hon. Gentleman will remember that Dr. Warner, Vice-Chairman of the United States Civil Aeronautics Board, suggested that he did not expect more than half of these passengers to travel in this way. That means that about 50 aircraft would be all that would be needed to carry that cream of traffic which is likely to travel by air after the war.
The position as far as freight is concerned is very much more serious. The average cost of freight by air is 40 cents per ton mile, and the best so far managed is 35 cents. The most optimistic estimate made of post-war cost is 10 to 12 cents, and that should be compared with a cost of about one-fifteenth of a cent per ton-mile by sea. The cost of shipping one-third horse-power electric motors from Chicago to Brisbane by rail and sea is about four per cent. of the export value of the motors; by air the cost is 530 per cent. It is true that the development of micro-photography technique may substantially reduce the weight of mail, and bullion may not be moved at all after the war because it is likely to be frozen. The main hope of the air enthusiast is the development of glider trains. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend went in a glider in the States. The technical difficulties of glider toWinģ for long distances are still a long way from solution. We have talked about pre-war subsidies, and as regards post-war subsidies I am dead against any private enterprise at all being subsidised, because one of the things it always does is to blot out differences and degrees of inefficiency, and if there is to be any subsidy after the war it will result in competition in lobbying the Treasury.
In view of this true statement of affairs as existing before the war and, I think, the careful and reasonable anticipation of what is likely to happen for some years after the war, it is most important that one should have regard to what really is


likely to be the development, militarily and economically. We, on this side of the House, believe that the future of civil aviation lies in internationalisation. We believe that a world air authority must be set up and we welcome with enthusiasm the joint declaration made at Canberra in January, 1944, by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand that the air services using international air trunk routes should be operated by an international air transport authority, and full control of the international air trunk routes and the ownership of all aircraft should be invested in the international air transport authority.

Sir Alfred Beit: May I interrupt? Did not that agreement go on to say that it would be extremely unlikely that this internationalisation could take place in the immediate future, and that in that case it would be preferable that the Governments concerned should operate? They agreed there was no likelihood of an international covenant.

Mr. Bowles: That is quite true, but they may be a little more pessimistic in the Antipodes as to what is going to happen in this country after the war. Because they are so far away they may think that some kind of coalition of parties will come into power, but I say quite frankly that we on this side wonder very strongly why it is that the British Government is holding up any declaration at all of its plans so far as post-war civil aviation is concerned. There is a rumour going about that the Government are waiting to see the result of the Presidential election in the United States. I say this to the House, and to interested people outside the House, and modestly to the world that here we have Australia with a Labour Government, New Zealand with a Labour Government, and, after the war, we shall be the Government here and this is the Labour Party's policy which I am adumbrating to-day, and that we three will be a very large nucleus standing for the principle of internationalisation of civil aviation after the war. I believe that we will get assistance and support and understanding from the peoples of the world. Of course there may be vested interests opposed to us—I have seen a circular from some Chamber of Shipping in which the chairman said

that, after all, the shipping companies have had some experience in carrying people about the world and they should have their little nibble at what is going.

Mr. Montaģue: They are getting it.

Mr. Bowles: They will not, because we are coming into power next time. We believe, therefore, that in the British Empire alone we have the nucleus of two Dominions and the Mother Country and we feel certain that we shall be able to persuade—where there is not too much rottenness—a large number of other countries to come in with us on this. If I am making a case at all, it is that if we go back to what happened before, which did not provide security at all but resulted in a tremendous amount of throat-cutting, and in 21 years we found ourselves in another war we shall be most foolish.
We believe that the world air authority should employ and own all aircraft run for transport purposes. We believe that it should own the aerodromes and that the aerodromes should have extra-territorial rights. We believe that the personnel, the pilots, the ground engineers, the personnel staffing the aerodromes, and so on, should all have extra-territorial rights. Further, we believe that we should naturally develop the world airways authority if we want peace and if we want to get rid of the kind of thing the world is suffering from at the moment. We should go further and, in due course, build up a world communications' authority by which every form of communications—not only air, because this is only a testing question and is not as big as has been suggested. The right hon. Gentleman, the Lord Privy Seal, talked about 1,000 planes crossing the Atlantic every week—I think he saw some report in the New York papers and used it without verification. It was a little bit of rhetoric, I imagines, but with great respect, it is a long way from reasonable anticipation. We believe, therefore, in a world communications' authority by which postage, telegraphs, cables, trains, shipping and everything should be controlled with, if you like, regional authorities such as Europa Airways—the details can be worked out later. I say to my right hon. Friend and to the House that if that can be established I am perfectly certain of two things. First, we would solve the question of disarmament, because one of


the great difficulties found by members of the Government who attended the Disarmament Conference was the absence of observers. Under this scheme we should have observers with extra-territorial rights who could see whether Germany or any other country were building up illicit aircraft or other weapons of destruction. What is more, if all communications were in the hands of this world communications authority, they could employ the most effective sanction against any nation which did that. Imagine reporting to Geneva—or wherever this particular international authority might have its headquarters—that Germany was building surreptitiously in various sheds aircraft which might be dangerous. The people of the world could say "Right, we will cut you off completely. We will not let anyone telephone to you, post to you, fly to you, send by train to you, or communicate with you in any way at all." That is a form of sanction which no nation, to my mind, would like to incur.
Therefore, I say to the House, to the country, and, if I may be so bold, to the world, that we as the British Labour Party are initiating this proposal as a real, definite issue, and we are in absolute contradistinction to hon. Members on the other side of the House who believe either in the national ownership of aviation or in the private ownership of aviation. We believe that the scheme I have tried my best to make clear to the House is the only one which will satisfy us and save the peace of the world.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have been for some time interested in the topic of civil aviation. The moment one takes an interest in it one realises that there are very considerable forces from different quarters of this House also interested in seeing that civil aviation should get its proper place after the war. Therefore, it may be germane to analyse the arguments that are urged for this country taking a much larger place in civil aviation, and a greater interest in it, than has been the case hitherto. First and foremost, among the arguments adduced from every quarter is the fact that here in Great Britain we are the centre of a mighty Commonwealth and Empire spread throughout the four quarters of the globe. Therefore it is important that civil aviation should have its place. Another argument which

has found favour in many quarters is that which points out that in the development of civil air transport in the future this country is in the very fortunate situation of being at the centre of the land mass of the world. Therefore it possesses advantages of which, as an energetic nation, it should be seized, and advances should be made in accordance with its opportunities. Another argument is that this country has had for many years now the biggest merchant service in the world. As a race we have learned to travel all over the globe, to supply services for transport all over the globe; we have had a merchant service covering all the seas, and, having shown those qualities, it follows that we should display them in the air.
One further argument in connection with the advance of civil aviation which has been used in many quarters on the Floor of this House is that we should expand in civil aviation as a measure for dealing with the post-war employment problem. I must here endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and say there has been far too much light optimism as to the possibilities of post-war civil aviation. Some Members have spoken, and some people outside have publicised the idea, of post-war civil aviation until one imagines that round the aerodromes of the world will be found people in sidcot suits holding up their fingers and saying "What about a pound on the Lancaster Lass or 10s. on the Manchester Maid?"—folloWinģ up the good tradition of the Brighton Belle.
Let us look at it closely. What is the estimate for this country for post-war civil aviation? Speaking in another place last Session, the Lord Privy Seal gave what he described as a tentative figure of 2,000 aeroplanes that would be wanted for the use of this country in civil aviation. There has appeared in America an account of the pre-war American production of civil machines, and if you analyse the figures you will find that pre-war it took a labour force of 100 men over the year to produce one civil aircraft. This is not taking into account all the improvements that have taken place since. One hundred to produce one civil aircraft. Take the Lord Privy Seal's figure and you find, on the only estimate yet given by the Government, that the maximum number that you would require is 200,000 men. Members of this House have some


idea of the number of persons engaged in aircraft production in this country at the present time. I am giving nothing away if I say that the number employed is more than ten times 200,000, and we ought, in approaching this figure, to be very careful on that employment issue. What we ought to say to those who are producing aircraft to-day is, "Nine out of ten of you, as far as civil aircraft is concerned, will not be wanted."
I leave the argument for employment, but, going back to the arguments adduced and from our past experience, we can add the fact that at least we have shown that we can produce first-class aircraft, and that we can produce the men and the teams to fly them. Further, taking into account all these weighty arguments, on top we find the fact that, before the war, we were exceedingly backward in the development of civil aircraft. It seems, therefore, from all this, that on the grounds of geography, history, political economy and geodesy, we are impelled to move. [HON. MEMBERS: "What 1S geodesy?"] So far we can all be agreed, but the real question is not whether we ought to move, but in what direction are we going to move? The implication for most of the arguments adduced in many quarters of going forward energetically has been rather on the basis that all we need to do is to get the Dominions together, get them to agree, and then, as a Commonwealth and Empire, go straight ahead. Arguments have been adduced in this House to the effect that we should dismiss the international approach which the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has so cogently put. "Brush it aside," we are told, "it is impossible. It is something idealistic. It is something for the future."
When international approach to this problem is brushed aside in that way, it means, in effect, that those who use that argument are saying: "You have to get on with civil aviation anyhow." In other words, the British Empire has to get its place in the air, an argument which seems to me too highly reminiscent of a Power in Europe which once insisted upon its place in the sun. It is an argument that derives only from the urge for power and prestige. It is an argument which leads eventually to war. It could be more forcefully put than it was by the hon.

and gallant Member for Watford (Group Captain Helmore) in his maiden speech in this House on 1st June, 1943, after he had listened to some of the arguments that I have been summarising. I do not tie him to the inferences I have drawn from them, but he had listened to those arguments and his conclusion was—I cannot better his own words:
I believe that our peoples are fighting for this ideal of freedom and for the ending of war, but if one might judge from the tone of some of the remarks which have been made to-day, civil aviation might well tend to become one of the most productive instruments for the promoting of wars ever conceived."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1943; C01. 63, Vol. 390.]
There speaks the voice of one with more knowledge than most of us in this House. The reaction of his mind to all this weight of argument directed towards getting back civil aviation anyhow was that it was leading, not to peace, but to war.
Is international control really impossible? For the purpose of my argument I limit myself to the matter of the main traffic routes and ask whether it is impossible to get international control in the full sense over these main traffic routes. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton has already given the House the views of some of our Dominions. That is a commencement. I do not know what will be the views of the United States of America, and I do not want to say a single thing that will imperil the possibility of an agreement with them. But we have to be frank and say that the tendencies, as far as one can discover them, in the United States of America at the present time are clearly against the idea of an effective international instrument. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite says "Of course they are." That is confirmation of the view which I have formed, that they do not desire international control. Very well, does the House say that the United States of America, or any other single Power in this world, is going to have the right to veto for all time a peace-time international control of civil aviation?
We have had enough of arguments such as that from the hon. Gentleman who said, "Yes, you can have your international control so long as you get everybody in." It is the best argument for delay and for doing nothing, that they can find. I am prepared to see international civil air co-


operation established, even if the United States does not come in, and even if we cannot get Russia in. I am prepared to start it off with liberated Holland and liberated France. I am asked from the other side how do I know whether they will come in. We shall know whether they will come in or not when His Majesty's Government have the courage to stand up and ask the world whether it will come in. So far, they have never given any lead or direction of this kind. I say until they have done so it is not right for anybody to say, "How do you know whether anybody will come in or not?" You will know the answer when you ask them. It is up to us to take the lead in this matter.
It is true that there have been references in another place to an international air transport authority. The Lord Privy Seal said there that an international air transport authority had been agreed upon at a conference he had held, a conference with representatives of the Dominions. But all we know at the moment is that the Lord Privy Seal has been in one of his back rooms, playing a game of poker. I do not know what skill the Noble Lord has at that game—and that may not be relevant—but, at least, we are entitled to know what the stakes were. What was the ante? We have not been told. Everybody in this country has an interest in this matter but, as I have said, all we know is that an international air transport authority was agreed upon by those who were at that conference. We do not know whether this authority is only a regulatory authority, which would establish various tests to be applied to machines, the various qualifications to be expected from pilots and crews and so on—in other words, whether it was limited to what one might call the rules of the air.
But that is not taking us anywhere. After all, if we are going in the direction of peace, what is the good of talking about rules of the air? The largest battleships ever made obey the rules of the sea. The true test is ownership and operation. If they remain national, they lead, inevitably, towards war; if they remain in private hands, we know what that means. Private interests will operate one against the other. If the private interests of our country conflict with those of another, the Government, with all their forces will follow, the Foreign Office will back us up and the United States Government and other Governments will back up their own

concerns. Business will establish a bridgehead and the Armed Forces will be called in to consolidate. If it is in private hands—and I cannot understand why this query has not been raised before—does it mean that we shall then get proper development?
We have had conflicting statements supporting the view that air transport should be privately developed and that the shipping companies should be allowed to come in. But are the shipping companies the persons to be trusted with the development of our civil aviation? If we look over our shoulders a little, we can see how much encouragement and development came to the canals of this country after they had been bought by the railways. Therefore, we should see how much development the civil aircraft industry would get from the shipping companies after their traffic cream had been skimmed off by aeroplanes. But even if our civil aviation in this country were nationally owned that would not, of itself, be a guarantee of future peace. Even then, there would be a danger of the national interest of Governments stepping behind a national economic interest of their own civil aviation. Neither the one nor the other meets the case of preparing for peace. Still less would it read to peace if civil aviation were kept under the control of the Air Ministry. How could it fail to breed suspicion and distrust if civil and military aviation were linked and administered from under the same roof? It would mean that every development would be suspect; every effort to expand and increase facilities would be regarded by suspicion by the rest of the world as some clever method of expanding our air power, and not as a genuine attempt to increase our civil aviation.
It would also prevent the growth of a really civil type of aircraft. There is good technical ground for saying that if you divorce civil aircraft completely from military aircraft it is only a matter of a few years before the types would become so different that you would not be able to confuse one with the other. Further, it is said that the convertability question will die down and that civil aviation can grow healthily as a servant of peace. I dismiss those two contentions and I ask Members to realise that the only solution is civil aviation, internationally owned and controlled. That is the only possible


method of moving towards peace and removing suspicion. It is the only way of getting freedom of the air and it is impossible to achieve this unless you have in the air machines that everybody knows cannot be connected with military effort and destruction. That is the only way to bring about the change I want to see. It is a big change but it is one we must create. The Under-Secretary stated just now that the Air Training Corps will be a part of our programme after the war, especially in connection with the training of pilots. Very well, but let us not forget what the A.T.C. exemplifies to-day in the minds of our youth. What do our children say of the machines in the air, what do they think of them? They think of how many guns they can carry, their fire power, the damage they can do and the weight of bombs they can unload. Those are the questions they ask. That is what the vision of the aeroplane means to them.
I remember when I was a boy, on the hills of Pembrokeshire, watching the ships coming down the Irish Sea, ships of all sizes—liners, tramps, and small coasters—and my interest, along with that of other boys, was: Where do they come from, where are they going, what are they carrying and who are the lucky peöple travelling on them? That was a vision of peace and service to mankind and we have to see to it that our children shall see the vision of aircraft as something harmlessly carrying goods and persons for the benefit of man-kind. It is only on the line of an international air service, civilly owned and controlled, that we can bring back to our children that vision.

Group Captain Wriģht: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who moved the Amendment, and the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Huģhes), who seconded it, have made speeches which were full of inaccuracies about the past and will prove inaccurate as regards the future. Perhaps because they were talking about the air, they both got their heads into the clouds and I hope I may bring the discussion back to a rather more realist state.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Back to earth.

Group Captain Wriģht: Yes. I always thought I rather favoured the idea

of an international air organisation until I tried to visualise the picture which was built up by the mover and seconder of the Amendment. As I heard about this body of control, presumably by an individual or a group of individuals, and was told that they might order all my transport to be cut off I began to wonder why we are fighting this war. If we had not bothered to fight the war, Hitler would have done that very thing for us. No, that is not the picture of international co-operation as I see it. I should like to think that we could go a good deal further than it is obviously practicable to go to-day. It is no good getting up in this House, in this tiny corner of the world, and airing these idealistic views, saying that we will defy America and Russia and get together with liberated Holland and—

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I cannot allow my remarks to be represented in that way. I never suggested an alliance with any of our Allies. I said that if we suggested a certain course to follow and they did not agree, then we might go on alone.

Group Captain Wriģht: Then I will substitute the word, "ignore," for "defy."

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: Even that is wrong.

Group Captain Wriģht: It is no good talking as the hon. and learned Member has been talking; we have to face the world as we find it. Whether it is a pity or not, there is no question that there could not be any internationalisation, so long as America and Soviet Russia hold their present views. After all, these two great Powers and ourselves will be the three strongest Powers of the United Nations when final victory has been won. If we are to reconstruct the world, we shall have to work together in the closest co-operation in order to attain that end. Otherwise, we shall slide back to conditions which will eventually produce another war. When I and some other hon. Members initiated a Debate on this subject last June, I was appalled at the lack of vision which was shown in many of the speeches that were made at that time. Civil aviation was then referred to as though it were merely a rich man's pastime. To-day, I notice, the tone has changed. Both the mover and seconder of the Amendment started their speeches by saying that civil aviation was a good thing, and then proceeded to spend their


time in saying what an unimportant part it would play in our future.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: No, that is what the Government have said.

Group Captain Wriģht: I suggest that the value of civil air transport cannot possibly be measured in terms of money. It is not only the number of machines that are built, the number of bases which are manned, and the number of factories making ancillary parts which come into being. It is the great results which are brought about by this new form of transport, which will bring mankind all over the world so much closer together. It will enable us, for instance, to develop emigration. I have always felt that one of the reasons why emigration was not very popular was because that people living in a country like this, with such a high standard of living, were inclined to get a little soft and were not anxious to become pioneers and to develop great tracts in the Dominions and other parts of the world which are waiting for development. People felt that they would be cut off from their own land, but the advent of a proper air transport system will change the whole of that outlook. It is developments of that kind which we have to bear in mind and not merely the comparatively small monetary effect of the actual civil aircraft industry itself.
Since that Debate in June, some of the things which I and my hon. Friends asked for have been done. We asked, first, that the direction of the policy of civil aviation should be put into the hands of a Cabinet Minister. The Lord Privy Seal has been entrusted with that task, and I think we can say that, for the first time for a very long while, we have someone who, at all events, is trying to do something. He called together an Empire conference. We do not know very much about it but we hope that it was on the whole satisfactory.
I am rather distressed when I hear suggestions that some of the Dominions may not be willing to play all together, in the British Commonwealth of Nations, in this matter of civil aviation. I hope those suggestions are not true, because it seems to me that, if we are hoping to develop a big industry in air transport, merely from these small British Islands, we are certain to be disappointed and we cannot hope to be more than a fifth-rate Power in the air. Obviously, when we consider ourselves, as we must, vis-a-vis the United States and

the great Soviet Republic, we find that these two nations have territories within the confines of which they are able themselves to develop a very large transport industry. We have nothing of that kind. Air transport inside the British Islands can never be a very great matter. Our own distances are so small and our present communications so good, that there are very few routes inside these islands which will enable us to develop a sizeable undertaking.
But, if you look at the globe and study the geographical position of the British Commonwealth of Nations, you see an area which is almost ideally laid out for the development of a great system of air transport. I wonder whether it is that our brothers in the Dominions are fearful that we should want too large a share of the control. Just as it is certainly impossible for us to develop as a single country to any great extent, vis-a-vis the United States and Russia, how much more difficult would it be for each of them? I wonder whether it is not the old fear that playing with the Mother Country means once more coming under its domination. I feel that the Government should make it as clear as they can, that our desire is to work together as one great unit, in this matter of development in the air, as equal partners, each having its own proper share and sphere. I cannot but think that, if we could get each constituent part to realise that that is what we mean, we should have no great difficulty in acting together. I hope it may be so.
Our next move, obviously, must be towards a world conference. I hope that we shall consent to be represented at it only provided all the other members of the Commonwealth of Nations are present, because I feel that we must bring them into this in order to show them that we really want to work as one unit. At that conference, we have to decide just what is meant by this rather loose talk of freedom of the air. The mover of the Amendment pointed out the absurd situation that existed before, the war, when he could not fly from this country to Istanbul except by going all round the Mediterranean. That state of affairs must be done away with for ever after the war. We must have the free right of innocent passage, and we must have the right of landing in an emergency and for refuelling.
The next matter that is going to cause a headache is the question of bases. Certain factions in America have been demanding unofficially in the Press that, because certain bases have been built with American labour and American money, they should continue to have the right to use them indefinitely. I think it is quite a wrong view that, because something has been built up for the defeat of the enemy, it should be used as a lever for an advantage in the post-war period. After all, material and labour have been expended in the building of aircraft carriers, and it is just fortuitous that the one development will be useful in peace, while the other, we hope, will not be required after the end of hostilities. Therefore, I hope that in all our negotiations, we shall insist that things of that kind, which have come about through our joint action in fighting the common enemy, shall not be taken into consideration when we are negotiating for the postwar period. My own feeling is that bases should be open all over the world on a reciprocal basis.
The third thing that this international conference should tackle is the setting-up of an international body for the standardisation of control and the fixing of all matters to do with pilotage on the technical side. Such a body might have the power to call regional conferences for the purpose of settling schedules and rates, so as to do away with that undesirable feature of air transport before the war—subsidies. The only way in which you can really deal with the question of subsidies is by the fixing of rates.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman now agrees that the time has come for the divorcement of civil aviation from the Air Ministry. I do not blame the Air Minister for any lack of development of civil aviation. With the niggardly amounts that have been doled out to him from the Estimates, he would have been failing in his duty if he had done anything else but put first and foremost the building up of the Royal Air Force. There is no doubt that that had its effect, with the result that civil aviation, always, has had to play a second part. The time has come, indeed has passed, when it needs to be put under a Minister whose mind will be entirely divorced from fighting the war and building up the war machine, and whose one desire will be to think about the future

and the development of civil aviation as a means of peace. It is nonsense to talk about the air as though its greatest potential were war. By far its greatest potential is the bringing of peace, because it has the one necessary attribute for peace, quick communication. We want someone who will not be frightened by Air Chief Marshal Harris when he says, "I will not have a man or a piece of material diverted from the production of my bombers." All the civil air transport that we need worry about at present could be produced by the diversion of not more than one per cent. of the effort of our great aircraft industry.

Mr. Montaģue: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman compare what he has just said with the fact that it has taken us three years to produce two agricultural labourers' cottages? Does he think that expensive aeroplanes are more important than the Housinģ of the people after the war?

Group-Captain Wriģht: I certainly do not think they are so important, but one thing does not depend on the other. I hope we can have a clear statement from the Government, first as to a supply of adequate air transport machines now, and, secondly, as to the principles of British air line operation both in the Empire and to foreign countries.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: One could only feel that the proposer and seconder of the Amendment were living in a world of fantasy in regard to this proposal of world ownership of civil aviation. It seemed as if the last 25 years had not passed at all, as if we were still living in the same idealistic atmosphere as that in which we lived when we gave every encouragement to the League of Nations and as if we still relied, just as we did then, on the co-operation of the rest of the world. Until the rest of the world co-operate, and we know that they are prepared to co-operate, we must not take the risks that we took long ago and in which we failed so badly. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend in thinking that State ownership could not possibly be a solution of the problem because, instead of having great corporations competing with each other in different parts of the world, you would have States competing against each other. If the purpose of hon. Members who have made this proposal is to avoid war, they are taking the


very quickest way to bring war about again.
I want, however, to confine my remarks to a much narrower issue. Whatever the developments in civil aviation—and of course they are bound to be wide—they will depend upon suitable terminals. There is one important terminal at present in Great Britain and it is located in Scotland. I will not be more specific in my reference to its location for security reasons, though I understand that the B.B.C. have failed to observe similar restraint. Still, this terminal has been in existence for the period of the war and some time before.
Owing chiefly to the imagination, enterprise and capacity of its original station commander, fostered and aided by the Air Ministry, it has become the most efficient, adaptable and suitable terminal for its purpose in and around these islands. Nature has also lent a hand in the provision of this most suitable terminal. It is free from fog, it has a good terrain, surrounded, I need hardly say to those who know Scotland, by lovely scenery, and it is adjacent to a suitable sea base. The Scottish people have been filled with a very natural desire to complete the gaps that nature, or the Air Ministry, or the station commander has left unfilled. Therefore, suitable hotels have been created in the district, there is an efficient transport system, and there are also, although this may not appeal to hon. Members, an adequate number of distilleries in the neighbourhood.
It might, therefore, well have been thought that this terminal would be unanimously adopted as the post-war terminal for this country. But that is not now a certainty because some doubts have recently arisen, largely due to rumours in circulation which have associated the Azores and Iceland as terminals for west to east traffic. If that is the case, it is time that we in this House registered our view on the suitability of Britain for the terminals for all Civil Aviation proceeding from east to west or west to east. There may be financial or international interests involved, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not make sure that Britain, which will in all probability be the bridge between the United States and our Russian Allies in political matters, is reinforced in that position by having an air terminal for Civil Aviation which will help to unite these two great countries in the future.

We in Scotland are not greedy. We recognise that though we have much merit and worth, there are others who have rights. What I feel, and I am sure the rest of my Scottish friends will agree, is that in Britain—and I insist on "Britain"—there should be two terminals, one for the Northern route, say, from Canada and the United States to the Scandinavian countries and Russia, and the other for the Southern route between South America, the Latin countries and India.
I want to make certain that, in view of its geographical position and of the political duties and responsibilities that Britain will have to fulfil in future, there should be placed in Britain, and in Britain alone, those terminals which are to play such a vitally important part in the future peace of the world. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend stressed the fact that civil aviation is and should be designed for peace. If there is to be peace—and real peace may be a long time off yet—it will surely be by the rapid bringing together of the various peoples who were formerly at war and at cross purposes with each other. Here we have the instrument, the weapon of peace. Let us keep it and use it for peace, but let us make sure that we are provided with the machinery by which its purposes can be secured.

Mr. Granville: We must be nearer to some ideal of what civil aviation should be when hon. Members begin, as several have, to make claims for their own parts of the world as the air terminals of the future. My own feeling is that we are not near yet to such a practical basis for discussing this question. An hon. Member said that he hoped the Dominions were not afraid that there would be too much control from London in international aviation. I do not think that this is what the Dominions are afraid of. They are afraid that they will not get a lead from us. If that is the case, the likelihood is that, instead of coming to London to get co-operation in international civil aviation they will do what they did in regard to aviation before the war, and make a close association with the United States of America. We have had a number of Debates on civil aviation, but some of the best Debates have been initiated in another place. Therefore we are grateful to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), who was fortunate in the Ballot,


for having raised the question of the international aspect of civil aviation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), in a previous discussion said, referring to the international ownership and control of civil aviation, that "that bird won't fly." We have had the opportunity of listening to contributions from the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, whom we are glad has arrived safely back, and we have discussed routes, airfields, engines, air-frames, and so on. We have discussed every conceivable problem connected with post-war civil aviation, but the Government have never yet become air-borne on this subject.
As a result of discussions in this House and another place, the Lord Privy Seal was, as a Cabinet Minister, given a special responsibility, because there is considerable interest in the question of what plans the Government have for future civil aviation. As far as we have heard from the Debates in another place and reports in the newspapers, the Lord Privy Seal was to take a hand in the tentative and, I suppose, delicate and difficult discussions and negotiations. There were to be discussions, I understand, with the United States and the American Press was full of the matter. There has been a lapse of time since then, and I would like to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend whether anything has happened. Have the discussions with the United States taken place? Are we to understand that the Lord Privy Seal has been to America to initiate them? If they have not taken place, we ought to be told what is the obstacle that prevented them. Have the Government changed their policy and have we to witness a spectacle of seeing what progress has been made shelved? I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us exactly where we now stand with regard to the first steps towards agreement on international post-war policy. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production is attending this Debate. Perhaps he will enlighten us and tell us something of the new prototypes that have been built and of the progress made by his Department in the design of new types of civil aircraft. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for raising this aspect and I do not share the opinion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who

spoke later and who said that he was talking so much in the air.
If we are to have a United Nations policy after the war and mean it, and if it is not to be merely lip service, and if we are to have a United Nations or international air police, it seems to me that, whether we like it or not, we shall have forced upon us international control or international ownership of civil aviation. I have heard hon. Members say that there must be complete control of the production of aircraft and its allied industries after the war, not only in Germany and Italy, but in other countries. I have heard it argued that Germany cannot be allowed to produce her own aircraft on the hypothesis that the production of civil aircraft quickly becomes bomber production. The suit case goes out and the bomb goes in. In the days when the late Chancellor was Secretary of State for Air, those of us who used to raise this subject advocated that the real power in the air is not aircraft, guns and bombs, but the air industrial war potential. Germany's great effort was made largely behind the shield of the Luft Hansa. She was producing civil prototypes, and we know now that these were in many ways the basic design of some of the bombers she produced for the present war.
I should have thought that one of the lessons we have learned from what has happened in the Far East is that there is no security with a long line of bombers, pilots and crews ready in the event of aggression. The only real security is a decentralised industrial war potential throughout the Allied Nations of the future. We had to cart our aircraft to the Far East on the decks of tramp steamers. This must not happen again, and it is here that international civil aviation must play its part. After the war we must decentralise our civil aviation industrial potential throughout the British Commonwealth. You can no longer have central production of aeroplanes, engines, equipment, radiolocation and so on, in one single spot, because in that case we should be repeating the mistakes of the past, and there would be no real security. We must decentralise. We must tell the Dominions and the Allied nations, and those who co-operate with us on an international basis, that there must be a comprehensive arrangement which will mean something like a redistribution of our international economy. For security


against aggression, this must be the basis of closer co-operation. When we come to discuss whether the Government are to have all of their civil prototype production in this country, I hope they will tell us the answer is "No" and that they are going to encourage production in Australia, South Africa, India, and even Palestine, and in other parts of the world.
One hon. Member referred to the question of the airfields being constructed throughout the world. We read from time to time of the construction that is going on, and the reports about this coming from the United States. What is to happen to the tremendous number of airfields that have been built by the United States and by ourselves all over the world? No doubt the Under-Secretary of State for Air remembers the days when it was a very great struggle to find a good airfield in this country or abroad, and when it was very difficult to get facilities for wireless direction. We had never even heard of radiolocation. He remembers also the days of the small, struggling air line. The situation is completely changed now, and we have vast airfields all over the world erected by the Allied Nations. There is also tremendous technical development in radiolocation and meteorological research. When we are talking about international co-operation, surely one of the first things that the United Nations can do after the war is to put these facilities and these airfields, which are the great links between the old and the new world, upon a basis of international control and ownership.
During the war, we have found it very easy to Exchanģe technical war information among the members of the United Nations. We have Exchanģed all our aircraft industry secrets with the United States. I hope we do so also with the U.S.S.R. Surely it is possible now for the Government to begin to Exchanģe information which they have at their disposal with regard to radiolocation and the various safety devices which have recently been developed, and the technical information at their disposal with regard to de-icing. I would like specifically to ask the Under-Secretary of State to give us an assurance on this matter. The Secretary of State referred to the dangers of icing up. This is an important question, vital to the future of civil aviation, because we shall have to persuade a large

number of people who are not airminded that flying is safe. Can we have an assurance that we are making strides on this? This recalls a dark page in the history of civil aviation in this country before the war. That was the question as to whether Imperial Airways had effective de-icing devices at their disposal. We must not allow this sort of thing to happen in the future, and the Government must be prepared to make sure that any improvement in safety equipment is available, not only to this country, but elsewhere.
In regard to the coming conference of Dominion Prime Ministers I would like to ask whether the Government are going to discuss this question of co-operation between the members of the Commonwealth of Nations. We have raised this matter in the House of Commons over and over again. Replies from the Deputy-Prime Minister told us that the Government would consult with the Dominions when they got an opportunity. It is vital that we should get together, because if we do not, I am certain—and the evidence is now before us—that the nations will go to the United States for their co-operation. Therefore I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give the House an assurance that co-operation in international civil aviation will be discussed at the coming conference of Dominion Prime Ministers. I realise that the question is closely associated with the vast production effort which is going on in the aircraft industry at the present time in this country. I hear of all kinds of committees to deal with this matter in the future, official and unofficial, to consider the future of civil aviation and whether there is to be a turn over of bombers to become airliners.
In any disarmament arrangement at the peace table I should like to see the complete scrapping of military aircraft at the end of the war. It would have many arguments to support it. If I had my way, I would see all military aircraft scrapped, so that Germany would not be in a position to say that we were producing another Versailles, If we were going, upon that basis, to set up an international police force through the United Nations, we could be certain of having the newest prototypes available for an international police force. I am convinced that, in so


doing, we should help the younger generation in this country to see the aircraft of the future, not only as destroyers but as a great service to mankind.

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: I listened with the greatest interest to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), especially when he was talking about the future of civil aviation. He gave us the most pessimistic possible idea of what will happen, so much so that I was tempted to rush to the Library to read the speeches that must have been made in this House when railway trains and motor cars first came. Can the hon. Member really believe that there is such an appallingly small future for civil aviation in the years to come after the war? He spoke about freight, saying that it presents problems of great difficulty. My mind goes back to the days before the war in New Guinea, when you could not possibly get places for airfields, but now there are new airfields there and others being developed. All made by flying-in freight and it will be done again. The Northern part of Australia is being made habitable by air development, and there are the same possibilities in Canada. What is to happen in the Northern territories of Canada? Surely the air must count in its development. These things are not only possibilities for the future, but absolute certainties. If it is the policy of the Labour Party to decry the future of the air, I do not think they will ever get young men or young women to join them.
When he came to the question of internationalism, I was amazed to hear the hon. Member talk about sanctions and to praise the internationalism attempted before the war. He talked on the line that we were, presumably, going to give up, after this war, all our air advantages, and possibly we would wait until Germany starts all over again—and then I suppose we are to have another armaments and air race after her.

Mr. Bowles: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really think I said anything of that kind?

Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ: Of course he did. We get on very dangerous ground in talking about internationalism after the war if it means forgetting all about what we have done since the war started and what the whole Empire is doing now.

Surely the hon. Member has plenty of time these days to meet pilots from foreign countries who are in this country. There are many from the United States, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and so on, and many of them were connected with the great air lines in the past. No doubt they have ambitions of greater air lines in the future. Can anybody tell us who, in Holland, Belgium or France, is able to learn to fly to-day or to do any flying? So far as I can see, no pilots are being produced that can be used by those countries except the pilots who are here at the present time, fighting with us. We can satisfy ourselves by talking to them that there is very little internationalism about their ideas for the future. Every one of them is longing to get back again, the Dutch to develop Java, Sumatra, or the Belgians to fly to the Congo. I cannot help thinking sometimes that our own young pilots may be looking out for jobs of that kind for themselves after the war. These boys are not going to settle down in small towns in this country. They cannot do it, after having flown all over the world. They will want to get out to other places, such as the Dominions, and work and fly there. I hope it is going to be possible, and I want my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State to do something to make it possible.
For instance, young pilots from South Africa or Canada, say, may be in our squadrons, in North Africa or elsewhere. They may make friends with other young pilots from this country. I know that on more than one occasion the boys from Great Britain have been asked to go out and work in the countries of these newfound friends after the war. These pilots want to know whether there is any set policy, so that all these young fellows can go out and do their flying in the Dominions after the war. These are the more practical points which we have to think of at the present time. What is to happen after the war to these young men, who are very anxious at the present moment? The speeches that we have heard from the other side so far will depress them more than you can imagine, and will make them believe that nobody in the Labour Party is going to think of their future, if the whole of flying is to be pooled, in some odd way, internationally. They are afraid they may have to go back to the old muddle that


existed before the war, and to the old jobs. That is a frightening prospect.
The other day, speaking in this House, I pointed out that many foreigners abroad were looking to the British Empire, even more than they were to Russia or to the United States, because these foreigners feel that in their many ways the majority of the people abroad have a great deal more in common with us that perhaps with those two other countries. They are wondering how we and our Dominions are going to develop and carry on together. They have seen in this country already, I think, in more than one Bill produced by this Government in the last few weeks that we have a great post-war future. As regards programmes for the post-war period, would it not be possible to give still further encouragement to these foreigners? If they could read that the British Dominions and Colonies have got together with Great Britain and have produced a civil aviation plan which will be the first of the great plans of Britain and the Dominions working together in the future—could they find that, then I think they will be encouraged to believe that Great Britain and the Dominions are going to work together closely in many other problems as well. Civil aviation might be the first great Empire programme. It could happen, I think very soon.
I would beg that everything possible should be done at the earliest possible moment. I would not be keen to go to the United States and make arrangements with them yet. To my mind it is not the time to bother them with this sort of thing. They have far too much to think of in the next few months about their own affairs. But if we could get down to this question with our Dominions and Colonies that would be the first step taken. I know that the Dominions are as keen as we are and have basically the same ideals as we have for post-war developments. I am sure they want to keep the traditions and ideals of their own civil aviation and not internationalise it straight away, if at all. If we can get them working with us now, and then go to the United States in a year's time we shall be conferring the greatest possible benefit on aviation for the future.
I think it would be an excellent idea if we could possibly have all preliminaries undertaken by a separate Ministry as soon

as possible. Our Service transport after the war will require to be looked after by the Air Ministry. There will be plenty of transporting of troops, policemen and so on to be done, and that should remain the Air Ministry's function, but the civil aviation side, the planning of aircraft and so on, should be separate. I do not suppose that the civil aircraft we shall have after the war are likely to be ready for the next four or five years—we ought therefore to get on with our planning now. We have to get more money, more encouragement for the actual planning, for research and for design. Do not forget that in this war we have shown ourselves to be the best possibly of all countries in the design of war aircraft. We had not really done much about civil aircraft before the war because there was not such a field for it. Now that field is opening up more and more day by day, no matter what the hon. Member opposite says. The time has come when far more money and time must be given, not only in this country but in the Dominions as well, to enable us to go on producing and developing and inventing as we have done in the past, thus perpetuating the reputation which we have gained throughout the world, during this war.

Mr. Bellenģer: I must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Fliģht-Lieutenant Teelinģ). He has evidently learned some of the art of debating before he came to this House. It is a well known method to put up an Aunt Sally and then knock it down, a most effective way if you want to reach a certain conclusion. He raised, in the case of my two hon. Friends on this side of the House, a very useful Aunt Sally for his purpose of demolishing an argument which was never put to the House by them. I do not, however, propose to spend any time in trying to convince him and the House that my hon. Friends did not say what he said they said. With the very laudable intentions which hon. Members on all sides of the House have urged that our civil aviation should, after the war, operate for the benefit of the whole of mankind, for peace and all that sort of thing, I think we are all in agreement. What we are not quite in agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite about is how we are to own and operate these wonderful instruments of peace. My knowledge of history is not so voluminous as that of my


better educated hon. Friends opposite, but I do seem to remember that when I was being taught some of the history of my own country in the days, I think it was, of Good Queen Bess, we were always told of the wonderful exploits of Raleigh, Drake and those who laid the foundations of our modern shipping industry. How did they do it? In two ways. One, they operated from a base that was the gateway to Europe in those days but which will not necessarily be the gateway to Europe in civil aviation after the war. Secondly, they proceeded to despoil the Spaniards, who had got to the West Indies before we had.
When we come to deal with civil aviation after the war we shall not be able to put our air transport on that basis. If we attempt to do so we shall be beaten. The Americans are far better at that game than we are. The air will not be as free as the sea. It is, therefore, obvious that we have to come to some amicable arrangement with other countries, including America. How are we to do it? Are we to set about it in the way the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Huģhes) has referred to in the matter of playing poker, of holding certain cards in our own hands which we do not disclose to the other side until we attempt to call them or they attempt to call us? I do not think so. I think we must do it, in spite of what some hon. Members on the other side say, from the idealistic point of view. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) suggested we were talking the same language as we talked 25 years ago when we spoke of the League of Nations. There is no finer instrument in international honesty to-day than the Covenant of the League of Nations, and sooner or later we have to come back to fundamental principles like that in international relations.
All that my two hon. Friends suggested was that although we must start off on an idealistic basis that does not necessarily mean it is unpractical. Various things were suggested about the business methods or the bargaining methods of America. I do not intend to say whether they are good, bad or indifferent, but I believe that the peoples of the countries all over the world, including America, will have more to say after this war in the control of such potential enemies of

mankind as air power than they did before the war. In this country I hope that it will be the policy of the party to which I belong to see that the people of this country are fully seized of all the ramifications of free enterprise, private enterprise, when it comes to air instruments which can act to their detriment and torture, as they do in wartime. Therefore, I am fully in agreement with my hon. Friends here that we should attempt to devise some financial and operative instrument that will be international and not entirely national after this war. I am not going to say that we shall get it in five minutes. Rome was not built in a day, nor was our wonderful air superiority. Therefore, I do not attempt to lay down any conclusion that we shall be able to get an easy agreement with America and Russia, but I believe in the case of Russia that she is actuated, as I hope my own country will be, by the highest possible motives, namely, utilising all her raw materials, all her air transport, and all the methods of production and transport, for the benefit of peoples and not for one exclusive set.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs and the hon. and gallant Member for the Erdington Division (Group-Captain Wriģht) talked of the high standards of living in this country and the necessity, therefore, of a well-developed civil aviation in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite agree, but I think hon. Members opposite are living in a fools' paradise if they think that all these wonderful benefits of quick and cheap transport will come to the average person in this country for many years after this war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because it will take a long time before we are able to reduce the rates and prices of air transport, taking into account the safety factors, to the level of the average person whose income will be £3 or £4 a week. Hon. Members opposite know that aviation was a rich man's sport before the war, Many of my hon. Friends opposite who owned and travelled in their own planes know that it was right out of the reach of the mass of the people of this country before the war, and I imagine it will be for many years after this war.

Mr. Wakefield: Is the hon. Member aware that nowadays a light aircraft can be obtained more cheaply and


run more cheaply than a small-horse-powered motor car?

Mr. Ballenģer: That sounds rather like the £100 "People's car" in Germany—it sounds all right on paper. But the people in Germany never got their £100 car. I do not suppose that in this country they will get their light-powered aeroplane. My hon. Friend ought to know that there is something more involved than owning a light-powered plane. The question, especially of landing facilities, etc., will help to put private flying beyond the reach of the ordinary individual. I am not concerned with private ownership, however, but with what most people are concerned with—going to a ticket office, putting money down and getting a ticket to where one wants to go. Is that impossible under some international arrangement? I should think it is more probable under an international arrangement than it would be if we leave the development of this industry to the sort of organisation which the Under-Secretary knows about and was interested in before the war. That could not produce cheap air travel for the mass of people of this country. Let him get up and say that, with all his knowledge, especially the knowledge he has now through his stay at the Air Ministry, that that is a feasible proposition for our own people, within our lifetime, after the war and I shall be very surprised. What my hon. Friends have suggested is this: allow as much development as possible, permit it, encourage it, but do not limit it to the shipping companies which are now getting ready to secure all the profits they can out of it. They are not concerned with air transport as a primary factor in their operation but as a subsidiary factor.
Let some hon. Members cast their minds back to the way in which we dealt with the film industry. We passed an Act that a certain quota of films shown in this country be British made. What has happened? American finance has got into this country and is making films in this country for us to-day. We do not want anything like that. What we want is to see that the aeroplanes we have are produced by British money and by British effort, but not to the exclusion of any effort that may be made by our friends and present Allies overseas.
I look forward to the time when, in spite of my hon. Friends opposite, we

shall be able to make these arrangements with other countries. I believe, although I have not any evidence to produce at the moment, that Russia at any rate will play in with us in this matter. [Interruption.] Well, I believe so: let hon. Members opposite produce evidence to the contrary. The Russians have shown by all their pre-war efforts that they were prepared to play with us if we played with them, but we did not; we fooled about. So far as America is concerned, I am not so confident, but I believe that our Dominions, which offer excellent facilities, landing grounds and so forth, will be prepared to work in with us. Every action they have taken to support us in the prosecution of this war points to that conclusion. But we shall have to offer them, not the jerry built financial arrangements we had before the war but something better. I have the greatest hope for the future of civil aviation everywhere in the world so long as it is based on all those idealistic principles which some of my hon. Friends opposite have done so much to decry.

Major C. S. Taylor: Most hon. Members who have spoken so far have outlined in some detail their own hypothetical plans for the future of civil aviation. I want to get back to realities. I want to delve for a short time into the ramifications, the constitutional and legal position, of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. This must, necessarily, be somewhat technical, but I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I try to explain the present position. British Overseas Airways Corporation was established in 1939 by the British Overseas Airways Act. That Act provided for a chairman of the Corporation, a deputy-chairman, and nine to 15 other members. Although the Act of 1939 provided for this, the Corporation was not, in fact, formed until 1st April—I ask hon. Members to note the date—1940. The members of the Board of British Overseas Airways Corporation are appointed by the Secretary of State, and he fixes their remuneration. There is now a chairman, a deputy-chairman, and there are five other members of the Board. At the moment the Act is not being implemented. As I have said, the Secretary of State is empowered to fix the remuneration of those directors. I would ask whether he fixes only the directors' fees, or whether there is any managerial


remuneration due to any member of the Board apart from his director's fees: also, whether any member of the Board has a contract for a term of years, and whether the remuneration is the same over the period of years of the contract.
This is the important point. The Board of the Corporation fix the remuneration of the employees of the Corporation. I would like to know how many senior executives the Corporation employ, whether all those executives are doing active jobs, and whether they are working on the jobs they were appointed to do or on some hypothetical jobs affecting Europe or America after the war for which they are now being paid out of public funds? The functions of the Corporation are extremely wide. The Corporation are the chosen instrument of His Majesty's Government and are able to undertake any of the activities which were formerly carried out by Imperial Airways or British Airways. Any other air operations in which they indulge must receive the approval of the Secretary of State. The Act of 1939 goes on to say that, of course, British aircraft and engines must be used, unless the Secretary of State approves to the contrary. Actually, of course, the aircraft that are used and the engines that are used, in the main, are American or converted British Service type machines.
I rather want to delve into the financial aspect of the Corporation. At the moment, as far as I can understand, it is entirely supported by public funds.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: On a point of Order. I had the privilege of seconding this Amendment, which I read with considerable care, and I would ask how far the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member are in Order, in view of the terms of the Amendment?

Major Taylor: On that point of Order. I would point out, with the greatest deference, Sir, that this is the chosen Corporation of the British Government in dealing with matters concerned with civil aviation. With the greatest respect, I think that, as it is the only organisation dealing with civil aviation and the only organisation in receipt of public funds at the moment and until 1953, it is certainly related to the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will proceed, and, if necessary, I will intervene.

Major Taylor: I do not want to labour this point, but I now come to a matter which worries me very much. Grants from public funds not exceeding £4,000,000 a year may be made to the Corporation up to 1953. The Act also states that a balance sheet and figures of the Corporation shall be produced. I believe that this House should be in possession of this balance sheet. Large amounts of public money are being expended, and we should know where that money is going. I am very concerned about the legal and constitutional position of British Overseas Airways Corporation. The Act of 1939 has been whittled down by Orders in Council and Sub-Orders and various Rules and Regulations, and I do not think any of us knows what the true legal position is so far as civil aviation is concerned, at the moment or for the future. It is important because, as I explained when the hon. and learned Member raised his point of Order, it would appear that the whole of our civil aviation plans are tied up in this Corporation, which is the chosen instrument of His Majesty's Government. I understand that at present something like £5,000,000 a year is provided in the Air Estimates—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. I think many of us are beginning to wonder how fat the legal and financial details of the organisation of a particular Corporation in this country can possibly be brought within the terms of this Amendment. They may be very proper considerations to raise on the general Estimate, but how can they be proper to my hon. Friend's Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is saying that the present organisation is that on which the Government found their future policy, which I understand is the point raised by the Amendment. That, I think, is in Order. I indicated that I would intervene if necessary.

Major Taylor: I am finishing now, but I must submit that this is relevant to the discussion. I should like to hear what the British Overseas Airways Corporation actually do. I should like to hear a little more about whether they actually own


aeroplanes, whether they own any airfields, or whether they merely employ personnel, perhaps some very highly-paid personnel—we do not know what they are paid—as employing agents for the Government. I think we should also know the salaries of these officials. I apologise for intervening at this moment, but I feel that, as the Corporation was given power by this House in 1939, and still has power, to continue until 1953, unless the Act is repealed, as the only and chosen instrument for the development of overseas civil aviation, and the only body that will be in receipt of a subsidy at all until 1953, we should know more about the Corporation.

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: We are engaged in debating an Amendment which deals with the principles upon which post-war aviation will be conducted. I trust that we shall return to the consideration of those principles rather than the particular consideration of the structure and functions of the chosen instrument to which my hon. and gallant Friend has very properly referred. When the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montaģue), on 1st June last, started upon the depressing process of what he then described as debunking much of what was said about civil aviation, he made it clear that he was speaking only for himself. Now we are told that the same position is officially taken up by the party of which he is a Member. I am grateful to those hon. Members who spoke from the opposite side of the House for making that situation so plain. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), in moving this Amendment, asked why the Government did not get on with a civil aviation policy. He himself made it only too plain what the reason is. The reason is the Labour Party, who have now produced a policy of their own, a restrictive policy, not a policy of development. They have persistently refused to permit any development of civil aviation whatever unless it strictly conforms to their awn doctrinaire approach. Let me say at once that I have no personal financial interest in civil aviation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor have we."] I feel it necessary to say that because, when hon. Members opposite find that someone disagrees with them, they nearly always describe him as having a financial interest in the matter, but,

when we disagree with their ideas, they proceed to come down with their tablets of stone, engraven, as it were, on Mount Sinai, and say that the only reason we disagree with them is that we are not idealists. The truth is that we do not agree with their ideas at all. We think their policy is a silly policy, we think it is a cowardly policy, we think it is a defeatist policy, and we think that, above all things, it is an ignorant policy—ignorant of the industry with which it proposes to deal, ignorant of the nature of the problem, ignorant of the traditions and interests of this country and ignorant of the essentials of the international co-operation which they themselves pretend to support. We believe that such a policy, if carried into effect, would not only do nothing to further the ideals of international co-operation, but would actually do harm to those very same ideals and would cover in ridicule and contempt both the party and the country which attempted to put the policy into effect.
The first problem we have to consider is, What is the future of civil aviation? Is it to be the poor, limited, narrow thing which hon. Members opposite believe? Of course, we know why they believe it. It is to their political interest to do so. They are here to propagate a policy of restriction, and, in order to justify a policy of restriction, and not of development, they come here to invent a depressing future for the industry which they propose to restrict. As a matter of fact, we, on this side of the House, do not believe in a policy of restriction, and, therefore, are not bound to accept the depressing outlook which they put upon us. We think, on the contrary, that the future of civil aviation is a great future. We believe that civil aviation in this country has reached a point to be compared with that of the railways and steam shipping in the 19th century. It is true, of course, that it has its limitations. We knew, and did not require to be told by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that aeroplanes burn high octane petrol in considerable quantities. We knew that already. We knew also that fees are related to pay-load, and we did not require to be told, either, that these things cost money and take time. But we know also that, since the war, the development of air transport, quite outside


the range of operational military aircraft, has been phenomenal.
We are not impressed by the argument as to how much of shipping transport will be taken by aircraft, how much of rail transport or how much of pedestrian transport, either, because we happen to have observed that aeroplanes are used for journeys never undertaken at all before—journeys like that of the Prime Minister to Teheran. It is not a question of how much of the existing system of transport you will take away. We are creating a new system of transport for a new type of journey and a new type of communication. We believe that the future of air transport is of great importance to the future of this country, and will be a glorious one if we take the opportunity so depressingly rejected by the Labour Party. The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member for Nuneaton and his hon. Friends are completely obfuscated by the continent of Europe, and by the future of civil aviation in the continent of Europe. When the hon. Member for Nuneaton propagated his ideas in the earlier Debate, he suggested an international authority, as he has today. He said:
The next principle—and this may take the breath of some hon. Members away—

Mr. Bowles: It took yours.

Mr. Hoģģ: He went on:
—"is that the directors should be nominated by the small countries—Sweden, Norway and Switzerland and not be nominees of big Powers such as America and ourselves. I see no reason why, if Norwegians, Swedes and Swiss find an internationally-minded Englishman, no doubt like the hon. Member for Nuneaton, he should not be put on the board.
Small countries should have the right of nomination—this is the hon. Member's solution for the civil air transport of the future. Do we not know that the real question, as regards the future of civil aviation, has to do, not with the continent of Europe at all, but with the great trunk routes linking all the continents of the world together?

Mr. A. Edwards: We want to see the point of this argument. Is the hon. Member suggesting that these countries should be excluded? I listened to his argument on the last occasion, and he developed a serious argument.

Mr. Hoģģ: The hon. Member does his hon. Friends too much justice. Let me read it again.

Mr. Bowles: Read the whole speech.

Mr. Hoģģ: The hon. Member said:
… nominated by the small nations and … not be nominees of big Powers.
It was we who were to be excluded, not Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. I should like to know what the value of a nomination by a few small European Powers would be considered to be by the great air Powers of the future. This is a policy of Bedlam, not a policy of reality at all. It is not a policy of idealism, but a policy of fantasy. But let us take an example. Of course, it is perfectly true, as we in this country of more than one political view have pointed out, that a small, nationally-subsidised, nationally-owned, Socialistic enterprise is not the true way of developing international air transport. Of course, it is not, because the key to the whole business, and to any industry in the process of early development, is not restriction, but freedom of development, not necessarily limited to private enterprise or a chosen instrument or even an internationally-owned concern.

Mr. A. Bevan: Does the hon. Member mean private enterprise unassisted by State subsidies of any kind?

Mr. Hoģģ: I propose to develop my meaning. The hon. Gentleman used his argument against nationally-controlled air companies of pre-war days. How much more could that argument be used against a company, perhaps with a world monopoly, which no one will be allowed to infringe anywhere in the universe? The key to development is, of course, increase in freedom and not in restriction. I am glad to think that we have a Liberal Secretary of State for Air. I feel sure that, true to the traditional principles of his party, he will support, against hon. Members opposite, freedom of the air, of development, and freedom from restriction, which has always been the very core of Liberal tradition.
But I feel myself that there is a very serious side to this case put before us. The hon. Member for Nuneaton put forward as his ideal an international world authority. Now let us face the facts.


We have been told again and again in this House, with answering cheers from both sides, that the future of international relationships in this coming decade is going to lie with the question whether we can co-operate with the United States and with the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics. That is the question, but, over and against that possibility of co-operation between the three great Powers of the world, perhaps with the addition of a fourth, namely, China, the hon. Member puts up his bogus international company with directors nominated by Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. What evidence have we got that the United States would co-operate with such a company, with such doubtful means of selecting its directors? Do we not all know, as a matter of fact, that the United States would refuse to have any part in such a scheme, not because it was not idealistic, because the Americans' idealism is as great as the hon. Member's, but because the scheme is bogus from its inception?

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member uses words I do not understand. What exactly does he mean by "bogus"?

Mr. Hoģģ: I mean it exactly in the same sense as applied to other companies which failed because founded on false financial and directorial conceptions.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is really suggesting that the proposal of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), made in his speech here to-day or on the last occasion, in which he set up a kind of international organisation, was false or bogus or fraudulent?

Mr. Hoģģ: I did not use the word "fraudulent," but the word "bogus," but I say it is at least as bogus as any of the great financial bubbles in history and will receive the same fate. I hope that is language which the hon. Member can understand. It seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite are setting aside this great possibility of real international co-operation for a curious conception of their own of a little directorate of tiny countries, instead of the real interests in this matter, which must inevitably break the prospect of international air co-operation, as it will. I have noticed also the argument that any alternative to their bogus scheme is an incitement to war. I

think we have heard too much of that argument lately. This country has not, I believe, been the cause of great wars. It has been, as I understand it, prepared to fight to defend the small interests in the world against world aggression. It has done so very largely because it is a nation of carriers. If we are to continue that function we should continue it as air carriers in future. Countries bent on aggression, like Nazi Germany, deliberately used the air or sea carriage of their goods as a means of building up their air force or navy, but we know that the genuine carriers of the world, like Great Britain, which has always pursued its particular trade successfully and in the interests of peace, have never, in fact, done so, and I hope never will do so.
I was challenged by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on the question of subsidies. For years our Merchant Navy has, in fact, received assistance through the amount of mail contract and bullion carried. I should like to know where we would have been in this war if it had not been for the assistance of the Merchant Navy. Are we to be asked now, in the present state of the world, which no one would call particularly peaceful, to offer no assistance to our merchant fleet? I ask this House to go back to the great principles which made us great, and declare for freedom of the skies as we have always supported freedom of the seas. There should be enterprise in the interests of public service, newer of financial interests, in which I have no more concern than hon. Members opposite; freedom in the sense of real development without restriction; experimentation rather than monopoly; and an increase in the volume of trade throughout the world as a means of peace, instead of this doctrinaire conception of one monopoly of three small European countries, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, who have not even been asked if they are willing to co-operate.

Mr. A. Bevan: It is always a delight to listen to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hoģģ) but it would be easier to listen to him if he did not lose his breath and his temper at the same time. I would like to answer one or two observations made by one hon. Member from whose speech I understood that one of the main reasons why we should develop civil


aviation after the war with enthusiasm was that we had trained a large number of pilots and other air-minded people, who would not be satisfied to remain at home and pursue more humdrum occupations. They had spent their time riding the skies and going to all parts of the world and were able to ignore distances with great abandon, and therefore we had to provide for their peculiar psychology. I have a large number of friends who have learned to drive tanks. They are impatient of the impediment of rivers and streams, lakes and mountains, and they go all over the place. They have a nostalgia for distance. But are we to go on building tanks because we have a large number of people who want tanks? It is a nonsensical argument. The future of civil aviation must depend upon its services to mankind. If it is to be a good service and people want it and if we can be persuaded that it is a necessary ancillary to civilisation, then, of course, we will defend and promote civil aviation. But we are not going to build expensive aeroplanes because young men have learnt to man them, any more than we are going to have any other forms of transport merely because, in the limited years of war, it has been necessary to train people to drive them.
My hon. Friends here have been entirely misrepresented. They were trying to point out that this problem en masse is not as great as it is suggested and that entirely exaggerated notions have been given of the amount of civil aviation traffic which will exist after the war. But that is not to say that we ought not to do our very best to develop civil aviation, to promote in our factories and workshops up-to-date designs and to make ourselves, if we can, the pioneers in this industry. We should do this but it is absurd to suggest that any very substantial volume of the passenger traffic or freightage traffic of the world will be carried by aircraft in the future. It is no good using a parallel like the development of the internal combustion engine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Like the tank."] That was not a parallel but something exactly on the same lines. A great many people wrote volumes about the future of the balloon and used exactly the same arguments. They said that the railway had gone far and, therefore, why should not the balloon go the same distance.
The real test is that we are concerned about the future of civil aviation after the war not only from the point of view of British participation in civil aviation, but of the extent to which the development of that instrument will promote international co-operation and to what extent the rivalries about it will promote national antagonism. The hon. Member for Oxford is impatient. He says we are not forward-minded enough; we have old-fashioned ideas. Here is this great new industry and instrument of modern science, and it is a new thing about which everybody should be enthusiastic. What does he want to do? He wants to exploit this new industry, as was the case with regard to the East India Company. Once more we can see where the Tories are going. They say that there is a great future for the industry; it is going to expand and everybody will want it. They can see the opportunity for putting their fingers into the public purse once more. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, certainly; the Tories are not suggesting free competition, free enterprise in the development of civil aviation. They are suggesting that the State should subsidise a whole crowd of air bandits. That is their statesmanlike contribution to the future of civil aviation. It is that everyone who wants to build aircraft should be given a subsidy. [Interruption.] Of course not, but only some favoured people. It is not a question of pouring out public money to everybody who can get it, but public money for somebody who can grab it. That is the statesmanlike contribution of these people. It is to be for selected companies who can use political influence to obtain subsidies from the State.
"Mails," said the hon. Member for Oxford. Has he examined the history of mails in America and reports of Congressional Committees on mails? He has not. All his contribution to the Debate was derived from his hatred of the Labour Party; he rushed up to the Library to get a book, not having examined the subject at all but thinking that all that was necessary was a forensic ability developed at the Bar. There is no problem in the modern world that can produce more bitter hatreds than the development of civil aviation after the war. There is nothing that can create greater corruption in British politics than the suggestion made by the hon. Member. He derided


my hon. Friend for making his suggestion last June. If he will read the American Press he will see that there are very large numbers of people, with considerable sums behind them, writing and thinking and speaking in terms of exploiting, for American purposes and American private enterprise, the future of civil aviation. Books are being written and papers are being read at technical institutions in this country designed to pit Great Britain against America and suggesting—and that is why the hon. Member derided Europe—that the British Empire, with bases all over the world, has the advantages that are analogous to the land bases of America. We have in our Colonies, in our home bases and in our Dominions, so wide an area of the world in our control—including New Zealand and all the other places—that, if we organise them as a single aviation unit, subsidised by State funds, we can present to America an area unit surpassing even those governed by the continent.
Here is the crux of the argument—America has that, we have this. This sort of thing will be organised with State funds, mark that, because it is not an individual here pitted against an individual in America; a State organisation here or in the Dominions pitted against the State organisation at the back of the President of America. With all the propaganda, all the bitter taunts flung from one side of the ocean to the other, and all the nineteenth century national antagonisms behind it—with the one pitted against the other in that way, ask yourselves what would be the position of British and American relations after 10 or 15 years.

Sir A. Beit: Did this happen in the development of the shipping lines? Was it not a peaceful development?

Mr. Bevan: Have we not had two wars in one generation for exactly those reasons? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite have played that game now for a century-and-a-half and they want to play it again. If they do not believe that, let them read the controversies which have occurred over the whole of the century between America and Japan—expansionist policy in the Pacific, one subsidising the Mercantile Marine against the other, and America losing the battle in the Pacific.

Mr. Coleģate: Is not this a tremendous argument against any form of State enterprise?

Mr. Bevan: The reason why State enterprise is not open to exactly the same dangers is because the suggestions from the opposite side of the House have been carried out, with private interests pushing the State apparatus along in order to promote their own private interests. It is entirely different if the State is operating the matter. You have not behind the State a number of interests privately organised and using the State apparatus for their own private purposes. In any case, we are not suggesting that in this case the unit should be the State. We are saying that here you have a service which, because of its technical character, is international in all its implications.

Viscount Hinchinģbrooke: What possible cause of friction, leading to national antagonism between us and the United States, can there be in developing our own air lines in the Empire?

Mr. Bevan: I will give the answer at once. Are we going to provide air bases for America, and is America going to give all her air bases to us? If America and Great Britain could agree to pool all their air bases, then they could pool the airships themselves. Hon. Members opposite have been talking about realism, knoWinģ that behind this whole thing lurk the most sinister dangers. If you are really going to operate this great instrument of international communications without international antagonism, it can be done only by the mutual sharing of all bases. If you can reach that measure of co-operation, there is no reason to stop there, you can internationalise civil aviation. Then he went on the next point. If you had internationalised civil aviation—and that was the assumption my hon. Friend made—if you had reached a point where you had actually got an international airways corporation established, it would not be the nations who had shares in it but the individuals in the nation. It is all the difference in the world. The difference lies in that individual nations would have a block of shares in it but that it might be possible for individuals in those nations to take shares in International Airways Limited.

Mr. Coleģate: And also sell them.

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, why not? The hon. Member is forgetting the whole point—

Mr. Coleģate: It is an anti-Socialist argument.

Mr. Bevan: Then the hon. Member ought to agree with it. I promised I would not keep the House long on this matter. If you have individuals all over the world who identify themselves individually with an international structure of that sort, instead of having nations with blocks of shares, you do not get that antagonism between nations which you get when the individual nation is the unit. Now my hon. Friend said that if you have an organisation of that sort, you must take the next step by putting this organisation into the hands of those of whom there is no suspicion, because, remember, we start off with an incipient antagonism. The antagonism is between the great Powers, the fear among all of us that this great service might be used for national aggrandisement, that it might be used in power politics. To have this great instrument managed by the nominees of the great Powers is really to transfer to the management board of this new authority all the antagonism existing outside, and therefore it is not the strong who can be safely trusted with this but the weak. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is fantasy."] The hon. Member calls it a fantasy. The fact of the matter is that in these circumstances the small nations are the most internationally-minded, and therefore the small nations are the only ones that the world can safely trust to manage an international organisation, whereas large nations are pursuing all the while their ancient rivalries and would use this international organisation merely as an arena in which to fight out their national conflicts. The hon. Member suggested that is a fantasy and an idealistic solution. The fact is that there is no practical solution of this problem except the idealistic one; every single attempt made, and I have read them all, to solve this problem of national aviation after the war is bogged in the swamp of national rivalries and power politics. Hon. Members, therefore, are making no contribution to this problem at all; they are merely asking us,

behind all this façade of concern about a great modern instrument, to agree with them.

Mr. Hoģģ: To agree?

Mr. Bevan: To pour public money into private hands, and to start antagonisms which will provide another war for our sons to fight in after a few years.

Mr. Boothby: I always thought the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hoģģ) was an ardent supporter of the electoral truce; and my memory is charged with his impassioned pleas in the country, and indeed in this House, for a continuation of friendly and helpful co-operation between the two parties not only during the war but in the more difficult times that, as I have heard him say, are bound to follow this war. All I can say is that the ties that bind us together will have to be pretty strong to survive many of the things he has said to-day. I am sure he will not mind my saying that he took a stick and put it into the wasps' nest.

Mr. Hoģģ: And caught the Queen Bee.

Mr. Boothby: And one rather cross wasp has come out this time; but, if he does not take care, a whole swarm of wasps will be after him in the near future; and then I suppose we shall all have to go into action, and I shall not be able to answer for the electoral truce lasting long. I disagree with a number of things that the hon. Member for Oxford said, and particularly when he spoke with some contempt of the small countries of Europe. I would just ask him one question. What about the Dutch in this matter of aviation? I think they had about as good a reputation before the war as any other country in the world.

Mr. Granville: And the K.L.M.

Mr. Boothby: Yes, the K.L.M.; and the Swiss were also very good. I do not think we should eschew them in this question of international co-operation after the war, if we can get it; and I am not even quite sure that the United States of America would turn it down as emphatically as my hon. Friend seemed to think they would. He suggested that they would not look at an organisation of this kind, with representatives of Nor-


way, Switzerland and Sweden. I am not so sure. I am not saying they ought to run the show—

Mr. Hoģģ: My hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting, but I was discussing a particular arrangement under which the Great Powers were to be clearly excluded. I was not discussing an arrangement which would allow those who were interested to have representatives, nor was I making the mistake that my hon. Friend seems to be making of calling the Dutch a small Power.

Mr. Bowles: If my hon. Friend had taken the trouble to read a bit more, he would have found the nominations were made by these small Powers, not necessarily of their deputies.

Mr. Boothby: I hasten to beg my hon. Friend's pardon, because I did not know he was only referring to this particular proposal which has been put forward. I thought he was rather throWinģ cold water upon any form of international co-operation. If that was the case, I think he will be quite glad I raised the paint; because I am sure his speech must have given that impression to quite a large number of people, and he will therefore be glad that it has been corrected.
When I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenģer), which also raised some heat, although nothing like the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, I could not help hoping that we are not now all going to work ourselves up into a frenzy about providing the masses of our people with facilities for cheap and easy air transport inside this country after the war. Again, I am afraid I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford in his advocacy of a policy of no restriction in this field. In a small country like this you can get from one part of it to any other in one night, and in considerably greater comfort than you can do in an aeroplane; and therefore I do not think there is really an urgent necessity for a vast development of civil aviation inside this country. The international aspect, of course, is of vital importance; and you also want a much better service to the islands around our coasts. If, however, after this war we are going to have the air full of air-liners doing one-hour hops, in hot competition

with each other, and, on the top of that, unlimited "Moths" falling all over the place, all I can say is that the brave new world is going to be an even greater nightmare than it promises to be already. I think there must be some limits to civil aviation inside this country.
My object in rising was to reduce the temperature, and bring the question down to quite a narrow issue, about which I am sure I shall have no opposition from any quarter. I do not want to deal, on this occasion, with the question of international ownership, or indeed of any kind of ownership; although I am inclined to think that this is only another example of the difficulty we are going to get up against, as between unrestricted competition on the one hand, and some form of State control and assistance on the other. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that it is going to be very difficult if we are going to allow the State to give subsidies, in one form or another, to certain selected companies, without accepting any responsibility for their control and conduct to this House. You must either have unrestricted competition and no subsidies, or a very considerable measure of State control; and there is no satisfactory compromise between those two. I have always taken the view that it is in functional and economic international organisation, as against purely political organisation, that the best hope for the future lies. And I would say to my hon. Friends behind me: "You will not get that merely by making pious speeches; you will have to take into serious consideration the views both of the United States of America, and of the Soviet Union."
It is, however, the geographical aspect which I want to raise, and I will start with my good native earth, if I may. Whatever form of ownership may be evolved in civil aviation, you can take it from me that there is a good chance of Scotland being left out in the cold, as she has been on most occasions during the last 200 or 300 years. The hon. and, gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) put up a strong plea for a great air terminal port in the South-West of Scotland. For security reasons I will not give its name, although I think most hon. Members are aware of it. There is no doubt whatever that that offers by far the


best facilities for a trans-Atlantic base, so far as this country is concerned.

Mr. Perkins: Has the hon. Member seen the reports on this aerodrome?

Mr. Boothby: Some.

Mr. Perkins: All?

Mr. Boothby: No. Has my hon. Friend?

Mr. Perkins: No.

Mr. Boothby: Well, I will not continue that argument, on the basis of inadequate information possessed by both parties; but I have no hesitation in saying that the proper air terminal on our Eastern coast, for the conduct of the vital Scandinavian traffic, is Aberdeen.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask the hon. Member to make one important point clear to the House? Will he explain that the aerodrome in Scotland to which he was referring, and with which our hon. Friend disagrees, was built by an English contractor?

Mr. Boothby: I cannot be led away into that argument. It is only another example of what I said a little earlier on, that for many years Scotland has not had very good treatment: but we are now hoping to alter that. I only want to say in conclusion, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree with me, that the importance of Scandinavia to this country after the war is going to be very great, not only because we must co-operate with the countries of Western Europe politically and economically, but also as a very important link with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. That is why I want to see something like a ferry service with Copenhagen, Oslo, and Stockholm after the war; and that is why I would like some assurance that, in this very important connection, Scotland is not going to be forgotten.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): We have had an interesting Debate, enlivened by some of those interchanges across the Floor of the House that many of us remember in the past and, from the tone and implication of the hon. Member for Nuneaton

(Mr. Bowles), some of us must look forward to again in the future. Let there be no mistake about it. On this side of the House we are not seeking that opportunity, but if and when it is forced upon us, we shall not be backward in taking it up. I must confess that when I had listened to the speech of the hon. Member, and when I had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Huģhes), reinforced by the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenģer), pepped up a little bit by the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), all of which depressed the prospect of civil aviation, all of which were of a tempo saying that the world will have a comparatively limited use for civil aviation after the war, and that this country has a pretty poor chance of getting anything out of nothing, and that if we tried to get something we were rather wicked and anti-social, I began to wonder whether it was really necessary to have the Debate at all to-day.
But then I was reinforced and encouraged by the statement of the mover of the Amendment when he said that he was speaking not only for himself but for his party. He said, to quote his own words, that he was "making a world declaration." So, at last, I felt that we were justified in having listened to that speech. The hon. Gentleman said that he was speaking for the Labour Party and that their policy was for, as it were, a World Airways Limited. I do not think he will quarrel with such a definition as that. But he did not make clear, and neither did subsequent Members, speaking on behalf of that policy, what would happen to World Airways Limited supposing those citizens of the United States, who are great individualists, refused to participate? We would go on, presumably, but would be quite a bit weaker. I would say that we should be a good bit weaker. Supposing Russia, folloWinģ her own policy, declined to associate herself with World Airways Limited. What would happen? Again, presumably, we would go on. Supposing other countries felt that World Airways Limited was ahead of its time and they, too, refused to co-operate. What would happen? We would be the only country left unable to own any aircraft or have any expression on civil aviation for ourselves or the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Bowles: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember the conference which took place at Moscow between representatives of this country, Russia and America which declared, among other things, that the establishment of a general international organisation for the maintenance of peace and security was an urgent necessity?

Captain Balfour: Certainly, but what the hon. Gentleman must accept, in conjunction with his remarks and with that declaration, is the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen who said that the keystone of the Labour Party's policy was international ownership and operation. He rejected international regulation as being no good. As I understand it, we then go forward with the world declaration made by the mover that the post-war policy of his party rejects any form of international regulation. In other words, if they cannot get the whole loaf of ownership and operation then none.

Mr. Bowles: What my hon. and learned "junior" said was this: that we had all this code of international regulation before the war, but that it was not enough. He did not say he would not accept that if we could not get the whole.

Captain Balfour: The hon. Member must not answer for the seconder of his Amendment. I accept entirely his attempt to get out of the confusion he and his friends are in at the present time. I took a note of his words and I would ask the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen whether he will deny that he said that the keystone of his party's policy was international ownership and operation and that international regulation was no good?

Mr. Huģhes: Regulation by itself.

Captain Balfour: Therefore, regulation without ownership or operation is no good. I think we are further entitled to ask in the event of any further similar world-declarations, whether for instance, international ownership and operation are essential, and international regulation no good, in connection with such a matter as the future of the Mercantile Marine? So far as I know the Labour Party policy is for international post-war regulation on that matter.

Mr. Bowles: The answer to that question is that this Debate is confined to civil

aviation policy. Our policy is not the same so far as all forms of communications are concerned.

Captain Balfour: Yes, this is a Debate on Civil Aviation but I think it is most instructive and illuminating to find where we are getting. We are now getting to a rejection by Labour Party spokesmen, in their world declarations, of international regulation and the expression of their view on behalf of international ownership and operation of all forms of transport. How that would appeal to the workers engaged in the various transport industries in this country, I do not know.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replying for the Government, in which there are a number of Labour Ministers, or for the Conservative Party?

Captain Balfour: I am replying on behalf of the Government. But we must be careful in framing our policy for postwar civil aviation to see that we get the maximum amount of agreement and in order to attain that I think we are entitled to ask what is meant by those on the opposite side of the House.

Mr. A. Edwards: rose—

Captain Balfour: No, I cannot give way. I did not interrupt one Member during the whole of the Debate and I think I ought to be left to make my own speech. Any one of us who has any responsibility for assisting, even in a minor way, in the framing of any policy, is entitled to ask what are the opinions of those to whom that policy will have to be submitted in due course. Now we have heard that the policy of international regulation is rejected and that only the policy of international ownership and operation is satisfactory. We have learned a great deal.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said repeatedly that I have made a world declaration—[HON. MEMBERS: "You said so."]—and I certainly have. But he must not perpetuate his misrepresentation of what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Huģhes). We are not just casting aside international regulation. My hon. and learned Friend said that regulation by itself was not enough.

Captain Balfour: Yes, and it follows, therefore, that if you get international regulation, you want to go yet further. However, we will leave it to HANSARD to see who is right. To the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen and to the jolly quips of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, who said, "It will be all right because the Labour Party will be in office and it will not matter what others do," I think I am entitled to reply by making jolly quips in return. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen reminded me for a moment of military menace speeches made in 1934 and 1935 when he talked about the menace of Air. Training Corps boys looking up at aircraft to-day and asking themselves how many guns and cannons they carried. I do not think he could have meant that seriously because the A.T.C. boys of to-day are thinking only of one thing—how to serve their country in the best way they can.
Nevertheless, having made one or two remarks on the speeches of the mover and seconder, the Amendment, if it is read not in conjunction with those speeches, calls for a civil aviation in the future which will bring about a closer understanding among the peoples of the world and for a policy of international co-operation in order to achieve that purpose. With that we are in complete agreement because the aspirations of the mover and seconder are entirely in accord with the declarations made, and the actions carried out, by the Government. They will thus see why I was so anxious to analyse what was meant by international co-operation and why I am so glad to elucidate that international regulation does not fit in with their picture of international co-operation but only international ownership and operation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House in March last, and the Deputy Prime Minister stated it again in June, that the approach of the Government in their preparation for post-war civil aviation is to ensure, through international collaboration, that air transport is developed in the interests of mankind as a whole. It must not be used, as it was the tendency for countries to use it before the war, as a political weapon. Some hon. Member opposite seemed rather to talk down the prospects of civil aviation and while I do not dispute their right to do so I do dispute their conclusions. I believe that any constructive policy must be based on the realisation that civil avia-

tion is a good thing and that the more there is of it the better. In spite of all talk to the contrary it need not necessarily be, and is not, a threat.
Some Members said there were exaggerations as to the number of civil aircraft which might be used by the travelling public in the future, but every new form of transport not only attracts a certain number of travellers who have been accustomed to using other means of transport hitherto but it also creates for itself new markets in travellers. To that extent, therefore, I am a complete optimist in rejecting any comparison as to future traffics by bisecting and trisecting the traffics which go by other forms of transport. It seemed a little inconsistent to say that there would be little market for civil aviation, and then for the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville)—who associated himself with many of the views of the mover and seconder of the Amendment—to say that we must decentralise this great industry throughout the Dominions and Palestine. What is the industry to build if there are no passengers? We must realise that once a system of civil world lines has been established, governments, commerce and travellers in general can be in closer contact with each other than has ever been thought possible in the past. This fact is going to make necessary fundamental adjustment in our methods of government, of commerce and opportunities of travel. The measure of distance between two focal points of some problem has given way to the measure of time in terms of hours from one end of the world to another.
Therefore there is going to be a big need for us to adapt the human mind and the human body to this gift which is put into our hands to use properly if we do well. Air transport is indissolubly bound up with future world security and the varied important and complex questions of international relationships of post-war trade and reconstruction. If we try to tackle it solely on the lines of national self-interest we should not only fail in the primary objectives of our policy, which is in agreement with the terms of the Amendment, but we should seriously jeopardise the prospect of international agreement on other points of equal or greater importance for a better ordered world in the future. Nevertheless, I cannot agree that the only solution for that international co-operation lies in what the hon. Member for


Ebbw Vale says. His contention was that the only solution was in the ideal rejecting anything else.
I do not think we can consider this problem in isolation. Certainly it cannot be solved by one country alone and the Government intends to play a leading part in the task of ensuring the fulfilment of our objective and we have taken various steps to this end. The Government instigated exploratory and informal conversations between the countries of the Commonwealth last autumn. It is a demonstrable fact that we are not only theorists but that we are actually practitioners of the policy that we plan to achieve and furthermore that we are giving that lead which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eye said he hoped we were going to give and asked for some indication that we were so doing. He asked me whether the Dominion conference of Prime Ministers would discuss civil aviation. I can give no assurance one way or the other because, fortunately or unfortunately for them, and for the House, I do not prepare the agenda. During our talks with the Commonwealth representatives general agreement was reached as to a possible broad basis on which the Commonwealth countries might best make their contribution to the future development of civil air transport in the general interest of peaceful humanity and thus seeking international co-operation in accordance with the policy which we aim to achieve. The Lord Privy Seal stated on 2nd October that unanimous agreement was reached on every issue discussed during the conversations. I have said what the purpose of the conversations was and that we have reached agreement and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton in an admirable speech asked me whether we were getting together with the Dominions. That is the answer. We have got together with them and have got agreement on the general issues that were discussed.
The mover of the Amendment said there was some rumour and suspicion that the Government were holding back from producing our plans. That is not so. It has been our intention folloWinģ these talks to proceed with the Exchanģe of views on an international basis. The next stage depends to a very large extent on the convenience and readiness of other countries. We cannot do it all but the

House will be glad to learn that we are now discussing with the United States and the Dominions Governments the possibility of holding further exploratory conversations in the near future. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wriģht) expressed the fear that we were trying to dominate the Dominions. We are not. We are trying to forge a partnership with them in consideration of the problem and are "ganging" up against no one. The time, place and detailed arrangements for those conversations have not yet been settled but the House may rest assured that the Government have formulated their views and the principles which they consider best suited to the achievement of international co-operation in this new field of endeavour.

Mr. Bevan: What are they?

Captain Balfour: For reasons which the House will appreciate I am not at this moment able to say more and sometimes when you are trying to develop a situation with a lot of partners and parties it is best not to be pressed at an early stage and certainly not to accede to the pressing to give details as to the suggestions and proposals that you hope to formulate with them.

Mr. Bevan: You are not negotiating a treaty? We understand that negotiations are about to proceed with other countries in which the Government will express their views on the future of civil aviation. It is bad enough when the Government can enter into commitments with other governments involving treaties. We can then only reject the Government by rejecting the treaty when it is made. In this case we are entitled to know what the Government is saying on our behalf.

Captain Balfour: I do not think the hon. Member is quite entitled to expect that at this stage. I did not say we were entering into any form of commitment. I said, "further exploratory conversations." An exploratory conversation is one that takes place at a fairly early stage when you are trying to find out the degree of common agreement that there is amongst the various parties. So long as all nations are prepared to accept the necessity for the development of world air transport on a flexible basis subject to international


regulation, which is rejected by the mover and seconder, possibly through the administration of an international convention which might lay down certain standards of safety, a common airport policy, radio aids and other things, I believe there will be opportunities within the framework of international regulation for each country to express its policy in the form in which it feels it can best make its own contribution to international co-operation. International co-operation and regulation need not exclude lines run on an international basis. It need not exclude national lines run by States. It need not exclude lines run by State sponsored corporations or lines run by private enterprise. A world scheme of regulated civil aviation should be big enough to embrace each and all of these alternatives according to the individual wishes to the co-operating nations. The war has already given a forced growth to technical development in aircraft and ground aids towards post-war services of regularity and safety. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Erdington said that one hundredth of our bomber output would satisfy the need for civil transport. There can be no question of delaying bomber construction for the purposes of civil aviation.
We are doing what we can in constructing prototypes of civil aviation and we are building certain transport for war purposes but first and foremost we have a long way to go before we reach the target of beating the enemy. Many millions of pounds have been spent which could not have been justified on purely commercial grounds and here I come to the question raised by my hon. Friends the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) and East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Terminal X, I think, is the best description I can give to it, though we all know exactly what it is. Terminal X is somewhere in Scotland and I understand it is not in Aberdeen. My hon. Friend said he had not seen all the reports of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) gave a very appropriate reply—neither had he. I have seen all the reports. All I would say is that I think Scotland has got to have a Western terminal because Scotland and the industrial North will require to be served in traffic needs and not only that but in bringing air liners into Great Britain from the Atlantic there are a few occasions in the year when you want an alternative air

port. When it is blacked out here it can be all right in the North or vice versa.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: This is most important from the point of view of Wales. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us categorically that he is satisfied that there must be a Western airport in Scotland. I suppose he means a seaport from which aeroplanes will fly to the West. Does that mean that the possibility of a Western airport in Wales has been excluded?

Captain Balfour: The answer is "No." We are still formulating our ideas, but it is my duty to tell the House how far we have got. We feel that there must be two widely separated terminal airports in order to achieve the maximum of safety in bringing aircraft in in bad weather conditions. It is fortuitous and it is right that one of them should serve the need for the alternatives for safety and at the same time serve traffic requirements in Scotland and the industrial North. There may well be other terminal airports according to technical needs. I can give an assurance to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs that the Atlantic terminals are not going to be Iceland or the Azores.

Mr. Mathers: Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the principle will be to choose places where there is the least possibility of any conditions which require any alternatives to be used?

Captain Balfour: We have one basic principle. It is to bring the maximum number of passengers over the Atlantic and land them here with the minimum of risk. This forcing ground of war-time for aircraft is going to help us tremendously after the war because millions of pounds have been spent which could not be justified on commercial grounds for years ahead. The world is going to start with these advantages and it is up to us to use the results of these war years wisely. I have sketched the purposes of our policy which is not at variance with the policy laid down by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in the terms of his Motion. I hope that, with the support of the House, we can now go forward to achieve it.

Mr. Boothby: My right hon. and gallant Friend did not say, although I imagine


it is the intention of the Government, whether they intend to develop the Scandinavian and North European routes as well as the Western routes.

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, and I have no doubt that Aberdeen will pay its contribution.

Major Taylor: May I ask whether there is to be only one chosen instrument in the future for civil aviation, or whether the British Overseas Airways Corporation Act is to be repealed?

Captain Balfour: I did not answer my hon. and gallant Friend's speech because he gave me no notice of the technical points that he raised, and I did not think they were in accord with the general trend of the Debate, but I will undertake to write to him on all the points he has raised.

Mr. Bowles: I think that the Debate has been worth while, even if it has only had some educational results for the Government. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, however, I shall do my best to be successful in the Ballot next year. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.

Sir Lindsay Everard: I wish to say a word on behalf of the Auxiliary Air Force. Not very much has been said during the war about that Force, but I think that everybody in the country realises the wonderful show they have put up in the war. I am certain that throughout the country they are held in higher esteem than ever before. Those of us who are closely associated with the Auxiliary Air Force, whose members include the Prime Minister himself, and the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wriģht), are anxious to get some idea what is to be the future of the Force. It is part of the Territorial arrangement of the country and it was formed long before the war with about 20 squadrons. Some of them had been special reserve squadrons and they were afterwards turned into Auxiliary Air Force squadrons. The time has come when some announcement might be made as to the future of the Force. While the war is on there are great possibilities of earmarking personnel who are willing to serve on a Territorial basis after the war in order to start

squadrons in various counties and districts where they are not in existence. It would be a great pity to lose the voluntary service of this arm, which has done such wonderful service in the war with the Royal Air Force, and many of them would be willing to form new squadrons in their own counties. There should be no district in England or Scotland—Wales is only rocks, but even it would have an Auxiliary Air Force somewhere—where we should not have an Auxiliary Air Force. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether any plans have been made for the future of the Force which many of us hold to be of considerable importance.

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: I should like to ask the hon. Member exactly what he meant by his reference to Wales being only rocks?

Sir L. Everard: It is a question of the placing of aerodromes. I should not like to land on most parts of Wales.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not prepared to make any pronouncement to-day on the important subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Sir L. Everard). It is one of the subjects that will come up for consideration in its due place in the studies which we are giving to the shape of the future Royal Air Force. At the moment, all I can say is that I have listened with interest and respect, and a substantial measure of personal sympathy, to the views which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

Resolved:
That such number of Officers and Airmen, as His Majesty may deem necessary, be borne for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

CIVIL AVIATION

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945.

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1943

Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year.

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding


Vote.
Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


1. Pay, &amp;c, of the Air Force
£
£


10
125,000,000

Resolutions to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered:
That Lieut.-Colonel Elliot be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that Mr. Touche be added to the Committee."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The' remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — RE-EMPLOYED CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish to raise the question of the treatment of Civil Service pensioners, about which I gave notice two months ago. When the war began there was a vast increase in the public business of the State Departments, and that necessitated the finding of a large number of extra staff. One of the means through which it was sought to provide some of the extra staff was to

ask pensioners from the Civil Service, who had completed their period of service and had gone out on pension, to come back and work in the public Departments for the period of the war. Many of them responded to that appeal, and have worked in Government Departments ever since. It is with the treatment of these people that I am concerned, and on which I want to elicit the sympathy and support of the House. Three conditions are applied to these men and women. The first is that during their period of reemployment in the war, whatever work they do, and whatever responsibility they carry, they cannot be promoted from the grade in which they were employed when they left the Service. In view of the fact that these men have had long experience, they can be used in work above the grade in which they were employed before they went out of the service, yet they cannot receive any sort of promotion. That is the first condition.
The second condition is, that, although they may stay in this war-time occupation for a very long period of time—nobody knows how long the war will last but I may say that the longest prediction I have yet heard is 30 years, which may be a bit on the long side—and although they may put in five, six or seven years' service, none of that service, however long it may be, is allowed to count towards increasing the pension that they had when they terminated their first period of service. Although many of them went out with less than a full pension, those five, or six years will have no effect in increasing their pension. Condition No. 3 is that, when they come back to the war-time occupation, their pensions come to an end, or rather, to be strictly accurate, are put into cold storage during the time of re-employment. What the officer gets is the wage that he was getting at the time when he left the service at the normal retiring age, and not a penny more than that.

Mr. Mathers: Even though he is doing higher grade work?

Mr. Brown: Automatically, he is limited to the salary he was getting at the time when he was retired.

Mr. Keelinģ: Without the war bonus?

Mr. Brown: I was going to bring that in as my last point, but it is true that they


do not even get the war bonus which is given to the rest of the service. I think the House will agree that this represents pretty harsh treatment.
The governing instrument of this treatment is an Act of Parliament passed in 1834, 100 years ago. The Superannuation Act, 1834, contains a Section which lays it down that if a civil servant, after retirement on reaching the age limit, subsequently comes back into Government employment, he gets the rate for the job, but his pension must be stopped while he is filling that job. Now 110 years ago is a long time, and I do not know what was in the mind of Parliament when it passed that Act. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that what the House had in mind was that, generally speaking, it is undesirable that a man who has completed 40 years' service, and has gone out with a pension, should then come back into some other Government employment and draw salary and pension simultaneously. There can be no doubt that that was the probable intention and purpose of the Act. In ordinary conditions, I should not want to quarrel with that purpose, but we must realise that the situation to-day is one in which we want to draw back into active employment as many of the pensioners as we can. That being so, we ought not to impose conditions that act as a positive deterrent, or make the men profoundly and justifiably dissatisfied if they respond.
The point I put to the House is reinforced if we look at the treatment which is given to other services. Let us first take these civil servants. One civil servant answers the appeal to come back. All he gets is the salary which he was getting in his last year of employment, and his pension is stopped. Another civil servant does not take on work with the Government, but does so with a local government authority. He continues to draw his pension, as well as the wage for the job. A third civil servant ignores the appeal altogether, and goes into private employment. He continues his pension, and also gets the rate for the job. Therefore, the more patriotic a man is the more we penalise him.
Compare that with two or three other categories, first with retired officers of the Armed Forces and then with officers of the police. In both those cases the summons has gone out to retired men to come back to their previous occupations.

The officers of the Armed Forces, like the civil servants, have their pensions put into abeyance, so that they do not get salary and pensions simultaneously. But they are not limited to the salaries they were getting when they went out. These officers are given 25 per cent. above the salaries they were draWinģ when they retired on pension. So this category of State servant—officers of the Armed Forces—are very much better treated than the Civil Service pensioners.
Now take the police, a case which is even more striking. As the House knows, much of the money for the police forces of the country comes from Government sources. Some of it is from local rates and some is expenditure on the part of the Government. Many policemen have come back into some form of Government employment during the war. They have been found very useful as police in arsenals and armament factories. The policeman reaches his pensionable age much earlier than the civil servant, because he can get pension from the time he is 50, whereas the civil servant cannot normally get his pension until he is 60.

Mr. Mothers: The police pension is contributory.

Mr. Brown: I do not think it is, actually, because the police are covered by the same Acts as cover civil servants. However that may be, whether the pension is contributory or not, at least the State, the employer, pays part of the cost. When a policeman takes on a job in Government employment, he is allowed to retain his pension, and he gets the full rate for the job as well.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Army officer is better treated as to pension than the civil servant?

Mr. Brown: He is better treated than the civil servant, and the policeman is better treated than both, because the policeman gets his pension, whatever it was, plus pay for the job.

Mr. Bull: The hon. Member would not suggest that the Army officer is properly treated, even so?

Mr. Brown: No, Heaven forbid. It is a general principle of mine that nobody is properly treated.

Mr. Bull: I suggest that the ex-Army officer is certainly not properly treated.

Mr. Brown: I quite agree. It is certainly no part of my purpose to suggest that the policeman should be as badly treated as the Army officer, or that the Army officer should be as badly treated as the still-worse treated civil servant. On the contrary, I am asking that the Army officer might be lifted up a little bit, and that the civil servant might be lifted up a little bit more.
The result of this arbitrary and unjust treatment has been that, in various branches of the State service, many men are unwilling to come back. One particular case is that of the Prison service. I am certain that the House has heard the Home Secretary, in reply to many criticisms of prison administration at Question Time, advance the reply, which I know to be true, that one of the great difficulties in the Prison service is the shortage of staff. One of the reasons for that shortage is the unwillingness of pensioners to respond to the plea to come back to the Government service, when their pension will be stopped, when in other quarters their pension is not stopped and they get the rate for the job.
Finally, under the heading of grievances; the poor pensioner coming back to the Civil Service is not even given the war bonus which is given to the ordinary civil servant. That, as briefly and as clearly as I can put it, are the grievances for which I would like to ask the support of the House, against the meanness, or the inertia, of the Treasury on this matter. I would like to tell the House that the Treasury have been asked to put this right, and their reply in substance is that the present situation results from an Act of Parliament, and that they are not prepared to advise the Chancellor to ask the House of Commons to pass an amending Act to put the situation right. I would like to think that I have every Member with me when I say that, if the Chancellor would produce a Bill, to void that Act of 1834 while the war lasts, he could do that in a one-Clause Bill which, I believe, would pass through this House with nothing but commendation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We may not in any way advocate legislation now, so we cannot talk about a one-Clause Bill.

Mr. Brown: No, Sir, I am not advocating this Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the hon. Member is asking someone else, which is far worse.

Mr. Brown: I was asking somebody else to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope I am in order in asking that this grievance should be put right, and that the Government should take such steps as may be necessary to that end, and not to say "We can do nothing, because 110 years ago, Parliament in very different circumstances passed an Act," an Act which was directed to very different ends from those we are talking about now. In all these circumstances I ask the Financial Secretary to do the right thing. The Treasury will do the right thing in some matter some day spontaneously—it may drop dead shortly afterwards. I would like to believe it will do so during my lifetime. I hope very much on the case I have submitted to the House, it will be convinced that this body of men and women are receiving very bad treatment indeed.

Sir Peter Bennett: In two or three words I would like to say that through my own experience as a temporary civil servant I know there is a very strong feeling on this matter. I have seen a number of very hard cases go forward, and when they have got to the top they have been told, "We think you have a case, it is a very hard one, but nothing can be done because the regulations would not allow us." They have come to me and said "Cannot you people do anything about it? It is admitted we have a case, but because of a foolish regulation nothing can be done." The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) put his case very mildly for him, and fairly. I would like to support it because these regulations which apply in peace time, when it is a minor matter, assume a very different aspect in view of the situation which arises when men are urged to come back, pressed to do so as a patriotic duty, and then feel that had they not responded to the appeal and gone into civil employment they would have been so much better off. I do not like the Government being told that it treats its people less fairly than does industry.

Mr. Wakefield: I also would like as a temporary civil servant—now


finished—for about two years to say there is a strong feeling of real injustice in this matter. I really cannot see why a man who has given his life and received, and justifiably and properly received, a pension for his work should be deprived of it because he comes back and does a job. Surely a man who comes back should have the right to have his pension and his pay for the job he is doing, or else to have his further service counted for his pension, so that he will have a longer period of time counted for pension. I do not mind which it is, but there ought to be one or the other. I do hope there will be the most careful consideration given to this point, and I would like to conclude by supporting everything which the hon. Member for Rugby has said.

Mr. Mathers: So say all of us.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I would like to associate myself very warmly with the plea made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). It is difficult for those of us associated with industry throughout the country to understand why the Government have taken up this attitude towards temporary civil servants. I think my right hon. Friend ought to take a more generous view of the situation of people who have come into the Service from industry and rendered such admirable work during the progress of the war. I do not think it is generous or kind in respect of their responsibility to the Government to treat these servants in the way they are being treated now.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) will expect me to give an answer to the point he raises. He was dealing with temporary civil servants, and the principal matter which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) raised was the question of the ex-permanent civil servant who is being re-employed. On some other occasion I would like to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend, The hon. Member for Rugby is always very frank with the House. He told us that it was a general principle of his that no one was properly treated. That may be a very useful principle for some people but not for me. I must maintain, and I am sure the House would agree, that in general the Government seek to treat their servants fairly.
I have listened with care to all he has put forward and to what has been said in support of him by two hon. Members. I shall naturally take a careful note of all that has been said. But there are one or two considerations I would like to put before the House so that they may perhaps see the case in a somewhat different light. In the first place I think the House ought to be reminded, as I am sure it has been reminded before on numerous occasions, of what was the origin of pensions for civil servants. It was that it was thought, and quite rightly thought, to be a scandal that those who had served the State faithfully for a considerable number of years should find themselves in indigent circumstances. That is a principle which has been applied for many generations now in this country. These pensions are granted by the State to its employees on their retirement and they are subject to the same sort of conditions which good employers would attach to pensions given to servants who had been in their employ for a long time. The House knows that civil servants' pensions are not contributory pensions, nor has a civil servant any statutory or contractual right to draw his pension in full in any and every circumstance.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me? Surely when a man joins the Civil Service it is part of his understanding with the Government that his salary embodies consideration of his pension?

Mr. Assheton: I am only trying to put the case as it really is, and to make the point which is not always accepted but which the Government have maintained, and still maintain, that pensions are not deferred pay. That contention has not been accepted but the Government—

Mr. A. Edwards: Surely it is to falsify the position the way the Financial Secretary has put it? It is a consideration as the hon. Gentleman has said. It is always a consideration in their remuneration.

Mr. Assheton: I am not trying to deny that a civil servant has every right to look forward to a pension. I am only trying to make the point that, as has been made in the House as recently as 3rd December by the Chancellor, the pension of a civil servant is not, in fact, deferred pay. However that may be I do not want to base this argument on the question of


deferred pay. That argument may not be accepted by the House, and I understand that some hon. Members do not accept it. Even if a Civil Service pension were contributory, Parliament has never regarded that as a reason for not limiting a pension on re-employment by the same employer in the same sort of office. The Superannuation Act, 1834, which the hon. Member quoted, and which is the governing Statute, provided in fact for contributory pensions. That is not the position now. My hon. Friend referred to Section 20, and quoted the effect of the Section, but he did not, I think, give an exact account of what the Section does. It says:
Provided always that in case any person enjoying any superannuation allowance, in consequence of retiring from office on account of age, infirmity, or any other cause, or enjoying any compensation for past services upon the abolition or reduction of office, shall be appointed to fill any office in any public department, every such allowance or compensation shall cease to be paid for any period subsequent to such appointment, if the annual amount of the profits of the office to which he shall be appointed shall be equal to those of the office formerly held by him, and in case they shall not be equal to those of his former office, then no more of such superannuation allowance or compensation shall be paid to him than what with the salary of his new appointment shall be equal to that of his former office.

Mr. W. J. Brown: That is what I said, in substance.

Mr. Assheton: In spite of the fact that in this Act they were dealing with contributory pensions, this Section was introduced because it was felt by the House then—and it has, I think, been felt by the House on many occasions since—not right that a civil servant who has retired and who has been re-employed should have the whole benefit of his pension and the whole benefit of the salary for the job he is doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is not commonsense. Suppose an ordinary business employer, a good employer, gives a pension to a servant of his who has served him faithfully for some years, and then a year or two later, oWinģ to the war or through some other circumstances, employs that servant again; is it not reasonable to suppose that the employer will take the pension into account in fixing remuneration? I would like any Member acquainted with business to tell me whether that is not the case. I believe

that it is. The Treasury, which is the guardian of the finances of the nation, has to think of these things in a commonsense way. I suggest that the Act of 1834 is not altogether without commonsense in this matter. We ought to satisfy ourselves before doing anything else—I should be going outside the rules of Order if I were to discuss legislation—that this Act is doing something which we think not right. It is not easy to deal with the matter in the time available. The State has had its man-power difficulties, and has asked an unusually large number of ex-civil servants to come to its help, and we are very grateful that they have done so. I do not accept the suggestion that ex-servants of the State are prevented from coming back on this account. I am happy to say that we find them extremely ready to serve the State in its hour of need. I would not like them to have to do so if it was causing them financial loss. It is not causing them financial loss. When they come back they receive a sum greater than their pensions, although it is not their full pension in addition to the full salary for the job.

Mr. Brown: It is not any pension.

Mr. Assheton: That depends on the circumstances. They receive a larger remuneration than they received as pensioners. I do not believe that the average civil servant who has come back to help in the war effort would wish to take advantage of the Government in this way. I do not believe that the ordinary civil servant who has been in the service of the State for some years, and has come back to help in the war, would think it right to receive not only the whole of his pension but the whole rate for the job.
My hon. Friend made a point with regard to serving officers and serving men generally. It may be a little difficult to understand why the distinction arises. There is in Service pension or retired pay an element of compensation for terminating a career at an exceptionally early date. That is an exceptional circumstance; it does not arise in the case of the ordinary civil servant. Men retire from the Army at an age when they still have much of their lives in front of them, and part of their pension is definitely attributable to the fact that they are receiving compensation for being deprived of the opportunity of continuing in


the service which they have chosen. I should like to put another point, which is not unimportant. In the case of an officer, retired pay carries with it a liability to be recalled in an emergency. Those two points distinguish the pension paid to the soldier from the pension paid to the civil servant. My hon. Friend, I know, has in mind to ask whether that is the case with other ranks.

Mr. Brown: Granted that the officer is liable to be recalled, and the civil servant is not liable, but comes voluntarily, in response to an invitation, should the civil servant, who has no liability, be treated worse than the soldier, who has a liability?

Mr. Assheton: I was pointing out that there are different circumstances. Suppose a civil servant on pension goes into the Army—of which I had a case the other

day—he receives the whole pension, in addition to the whole of his Army pay.

Mr. Brown: That makes it still more ridiculous.

Mr. Assheton: No, it does not make it ridiculous. We have to consider the case of a man employed in the same service as he was before. It is quite different when a man who was in the Civil Service is employed in the Army or a man who was in the Army is now employed in the Civil Service.

Mr. Wakefield: Surely he is worth more if he is again employed in the same job?

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.